|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 19, 2011 20:43:37 GMT -4
Completely wrong - many peolpe (including real experts) have tried to deny Pokrovsky's modeling work, but so far the attempts have been either laughable or just miserable. It takes no effort or expertise to scoff, but it does take expertise to show in detail where the rebuttals are in error. I pay attention only to the latter. We have, and you clearly have not read them. Therefore your claim that the rebuttals are "laughable or just miserable" is an uninformed bluff. What if the CIA is not paying me? It is very typical of hoax theorists to assume all their critics must be American. Correct. Real-life questions are discussed according to evidence and sound logic, not according to vague unsupported assertions. No, the F-1 predated Kennedy. And Kennedy did not micromanage the development of Apollo. Prove it. Citation needed. Irrelevant. The tools you propose to use were not available in 1969. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 19, 2011 20:48:59 GMT -4
Of course if CIA is paying to you, I can understand that you must try to earn you food. Making false claims about the members of this forum is a violation of the rules. I therefore must require you to either substantiate your accusation or retract it with an apology. I'll give you 24 hours. If you fail to meet these demands I will ban you for one month. |
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Dec 19, 2011 22:24:02 GMT -4
It is very typical to americans to just say something and wait that the friends are halooballoing and supporting. I'm not American. This claim demonstrates that you don't understand even the basics of physics. No wonder you are confused. |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 19, 2011 22:49:20 GMT -4
In this thread we don't talk about pictures - I can prepare similar Apollo pictures in one day per mission - they are topographically accurate and also time of day is considered. The questionms of "no atmosphere" or "1/6ths gravity" have not been seen. If anybody walks on Moon surface, the steps are easily 3-5 m long with the weight of astrionauts - we have not seen anything like that (longest step is 0.5 m). Why they put a nail into the feather? But they don't demonstrate the more exact topography as it is based on 100 m conour scheme. Let the Gish Galloping commence... |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 19, 2011 22:59:15 GMT -4
What about being on the Moon lengthens the astronauts' legs?
|
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 20, 2011 0:19:11 GMT -4
Hey, we're still waiting for you to create a photograph that is indistinguishable from the Apollo photos, in "one day", as you said. What's taking so long?
We're not even looking for one with people or hardware in it. Just show us, step by step, how you'd digitally create an Apollo landscape.
|
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 20, 2011 0:24:16 GMT -4
What about being on the Moon lengthens the astronauts' legs? A very good point. Tsialkovsky, could you expand on why a human with legs of, say, approximately .9 m length, would be able to take a 5 m stride simply because of lower gravity? |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 20, 2011 6:46:34 GMT -4
If you want to challenge some results of his research, you should make your point. Pokrovsky asserts that the Saturn V was going only about half as fast as NASA claims at S-IC/S-II staging. I.e., its acceleration was not as great as claimed. You've already been shown how this claim is inconsistent with the observed liftoff acceleration. It is also inconsistent with the fact that at about T+61 seconds the Saturn V developed a characteristic set of shock condensation clouds as the launcher went transonic, i.e, it accelerated past Mach 1. Neither observation can be questioned because they were made by many thousands of people with their own eyes during the 12 Saturn V launches and the Skylab-1 launch. We therefore look forward to either 1) substantive responses to both of these rebuttals or 2) your withdrawal of your support for Pokrovsky's claims. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 20, 2011 7:37:17 GMT -4
Completely wrong - many peolpe (including real experts) have tried to deny Pokrovsky's modeling work, but so far the attempts have been either laughable or just miserable. There's also Pokrovsky's argument based on the rate at which the second stage separates from the smoke cloud of the retros. This is again a geometrical mistake as, from the point of view used, the part of the cloud he claims is its leading edge is in reality expanding to the side in a way that makes it appear closer to the upper stage than the actual leading edge which is hidden from view. |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 20, 2011 12:30:24 GMT -4
Perhaps when Mr. T. has finished his trivially-easy photomanipulation job, he could explain the above quote.
I'm not sure what exactly he means. Does he mean that he believes that they DID put a nail in the feather for the experiment? If so, what is his evidence of that? Or is he asking why they didn't? Or asking whether or not they did?
I understand that Mr. T. is not a native English speaker, and his English is generally very good, but this question is not very clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Dec 22, 2011 15:20:07 GMT -4
I think that we have in these pages a big team of NASA staff who are paid to: 1) collect information that the opponents have in order to counterattac; 2) provide lousy answers to any critical opinion presented in the discussion board. Of course if CIA is paying to you, I can understand that you must try to earn you food. I'm confused, are we working for NASA or the CIA? |
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 22, 2011 15:55:39 GMT -4
Well, they're all the guv'ment, so they are all the same people.
Yes, even the National Park Service is part of this sinister agenda; they have spies everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Dec 22, 2011 15:58:01 GMT -4
I'm confused, are we working for NASA or the CIA? What do you mean, or? |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 27, 2011 11:18:38 GMT -4
Tsialkovsky,
I'm still waiting for the technical details describing what was wrong with the F-1 engine. Also the docking mechanism.
Also awaiting your retraction and apology for claiming we work for NASA/CIA.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 27, 2011 15:24:05 GMT -4
Let us not abandon hope, but neither hold our breath.
|
|
