|
Post by VALIS on Apr 23, 2008 11:06:45 GMT -4
Jig boards are still used for aircraft harness. Nothing extravagant there. Well maybe not all aircraft, I don't know, but I've personally seen jig boards designed for recent aircraft models.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 23, 2008 11:10:30 GMT -4
Should this wiring issue be split off into its own thread?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 23, 2008 11:11:46 GMT -4
If I was to find any reason for a hoax I would have gone with the cracked wiring being a grave issue. But that doesn't fit, unless you are claiming wiring was a problem all along, even back to Mercury. What about the wiring specifically caused it to limit faking to lunar missions? If I see the word 'untested' associated with the LM again I may scream. It was tested extensively on the ground, then unmanned in Earth orbit on Apollo 5, manned in Earth orbit on Apollo 9 and manned in lunar orbit on Apollo 10. Based on three successful test flights, what more do you propose could be done with it? That's the least practical plan I've ever heard. Firstly, why would you send miltary unknowns in place of some of the most qualified personnel in the world? The astronauts were famous because they were astronauts, but that doesn't stop them being the best qualified people to fly those missions, thus reducing the chances of anything going wrong. Secondly, if anything did go wrong how would you stop people finding out unless you did it all behind closed doors and only released stuff to the public later, something which manifestly was not the case on Apollo? Anyway, I'm really more interested in turbonium giving us some real answers.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Apr 23, 2008 11:33:21 GMT -4
Inconceivable, this thread was set up for turbonium to explain his theories about why the missions were faked. We are waiting on replies from him, so to hijack it for a completely separate reason is from some perspectives a bit rude.
You say that you were giving a hypothetical "in lieu of the thread title",. I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, but if you meant that you felt that this thread and this thread alone was for discussion about hoax issues then perhaps you should look at the site name again. You introduced an issue that had absolutely no bearing on the topics that were already being discussed on this thread, and there is nothing stopping you from starting a new thread if you felt you had something to contribute.
The polite thing to do, rather than continue stepping on other people's discussions, would be to split your topic off onto a new thread. You can rest assured that all the same people that are already contributing to this thread will follow you to the new thread too. It's not like the board is particularly crowded at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 23, 2008 12:41:33 GMT -4
Yes, since it's becoming clear that inconceivable's comments are not intended to address the narrow purpose of this thread, it would be better if they were moved to another thread. And I will certainly follow them there.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 27, 2008 22:30:45 GMT -4
I have to wonder what you guys were expecting to get from Turbonium. He will never reply with anything close to what you asked for because it doesn't exist. We all know there is no evidence to support his claims. We all know that either we won't hear from him again on this thread or he will continue to distract and hand-wave.
Hey Turbonium, why don't you think about that? You don't have the evidence we request, everyone knows that. You can't specify anything you brought up. You know it. Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 28, 2008 0:14:03 GMT -4
What did I expect? Pretty much what we've gotten. But this was not, I think, an excercise in what any of us expected. It was an exercise in what was necessary to prove a point. If I had asked anyone with any level of serious knowledge about Apollo this sort of thing, I would have gotten actual answers. Pertinent answers. Correct answers, which could be backed up by a great deal of documentation.
From Turbonium . . . .
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Apr 28, 2008 0:56:47 GMT -4
Some fascinating recent quotes from Turbs over on UM... "Perhaps it's asking too much of you to admit your argument has no merit." "You're interpreting it to fit your argument, and that tactic is simply unacceptable." "You're so intent on smearing him, you twist and spin the most irrelevant points to try and help your ludicrous argument." "It's time you showed some actual evidence for your argument, or concede that it has no validity. Personal opinions and wild leaps in logic do not cut it." "That's why I've asked you specific questions about it, which you refuse to answer, because you know it will prove my case." "Either you answer my questions, or else I have no choice but to conclude that YOU are a LIAR." Oh, the hypocrisy... Cz
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 28, 2008 1:03:28 GMT -4
Of course we expected no material response from Turbonium. But we perform the exercise anyway so that our prediction takes on the essence of fact. It is one thing to say, "If we ask Turbonium questions, he probably won't respond." It's another thing altogether to be able to say, "We asked Turbonium questions, and he didn't respond." The one can be debated; the other cannot.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 28, 2008 2:49:26 GMT -4
Oh I'm sure he can still debate it.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 28, 2008 5:41:15 GMT -4
I have to wonder what you guys were expecting to get from Turbonium. Pretty much exactly what we got, frankly. Indeed, that seemed like the most likely outcome. But now that's clear and in print. There is now a concrete example of a simple, direct question being asked and no direct answer being received. I'd call that a result, even if it is not at first sight the one being asked for. If, on the other hand, turbonium cares to come in and provide us with the precise sequence of events he believes took place with supporting evidence, well I won't complain.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 28, 2008 9:32:46 GMT -4
If, on the other hand, turbonium cares to come in and provide us with the precise sequence of events he believes took place with supporting evidence, well I won't complain.
I always enjoy a good novel.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 28, 2008 9:50:34 GMT -4
There's nothing wrong with playing it straight, and proceeding along the lines that we expect him to return and defend his claim. So, turbonium: 1. What exactly prevented Apollo 8 from going to the Moon?
2. Exactly when and how was this problem or set of problems discovered to be insurmountable?
3. What specific evidence do you have for the existence of this problem?Not quotes mined from 1958 articles. Not recent articles which talk about the hazards of long-duration missions. Not handwaving claims about other launch vehicles. What specifically was discovered, and when, that kept Apollo 8 from leaving Earth orbit, and what is the specific evidence for it? [ Apollo 8 was tracked on its translunar trajectory by observers in Hawaii, the continental United States, the UK, France, and Spain, as well as by the Soviet Union (thanks, PhantomWolf).]
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 5, 2008 20:00:07 GMT -4
So why would they bother even training the astronauts in the first place?
BTW Even the NASA chimps received 1500 to 3000 hours of training. You just couldn't put anybody in those spaceships.
I think only Alan Shepard from the first group made it to the moon on Apollo 14.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 5, 2008 20:28:35 GMT -4
www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.htmlFrom Paul Maley's page, here is a TV image of Apollo 12 (as the tip of the labelled arrow) accompanied by two of the flashing SLA panels (below the right arrow). This was taken at 0200 UT on 14 November 1969, at a range of about 50,000 milesOh, my goodness. That's through the VA Radiation Belts! And they didn't get fried? ;D How in the heck do HB get around these issues? Is there any good HB site that addresses this?
|
|