|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 31, 2011 14:19:34 GMT -4
What you should do is to let go of the prestige and concentrate on the obvious facts. Right, here's one: the speed you say the rocket was going at 108 seconds into the flight is inconsistent with the acceleration that can be determined by analysis of the first 12 seconds of launch, as the rocket rises past the tower. Why will you not address that? Contradiction noted. You don't get to claim respect for someone's professional abilities then accuse them of making mistakes that would have seen them fail to gain the qualifications necessary to do that job in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 14:20:15 GMT -4
You are simply marking my words, that's it. You brought up the construction of the Saturn V and suggested it was relevant to the validity of your claim. You have the burden of proof. That is your claim. It is not knowledge. Your method of establishing the claim is what's being examined. I gave you a convenient list, which you have ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 31, 2011 14:21:08 GMT -4
Are you aware of the difference between a boilerplate Apollo test article and a flight-qualified command module? That's what NASA says, right? And we should take their words for granted, or should we not? We don't need to. There is extensive documentation of the testing and flight articles of Apollo, and the one in that picture is most definitely a boilerplate. We dno't have to take anyone's word. We can see very clear differences between what was stacked on the Apollo 13 rocket and what the Russians recovered. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 31, 2011 14:22:56 GMT -4
And to that end I haven't seen any models which would prove that the calculations presented here are faulty. I gave you one. The speed you say it was doing according to those calculations is inconsistent with the acceleration that can be determined by observation of the first 12 seconds of launch, as the rocket passes a tower of known height in a duration that is clearly defined and even called out in the launch commentary. Why will you not address that? |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 31, 2011 14:24:55 GMT -4
One thing is certain, the best rockets at that time, both Soviet and American, could take only 15-20 tons into space. To this we have an exception, the Skylab space station, with its declared weight of 77 tons, delivered into space by a Saturn V rocket. And it stands out as an anomaly in the context of that time. So now you're saying Skylab was a fake too? Wow, that must have been a shock to the Australians who had bits of it raining down on their heads in 1979.... |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 31, 2011 14:26:05 GMT -4
And just in case you missed it:
The speed you say the rocket was doing 100 or so seconds into the flight is inconsistent with the acceleration that can be determined by watching the first 12 seconds of the flight. This was the FIRST objection raised to your original post and you STILL have not actually addressed it. Why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 14:26:20 GMT -4
We dno't have to take anyone's word. We can see very clear differences between what was stacked on the Apollo 13 rocket and what the Russians recovered. The recovered boilerplate was not even built so as to be fitted to a rocket. It was, essentially, a CM-shaped boat that would have the same water buoyancy as a flight CM. It never went more 100 feet above Earth's surface. |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Oct 31, 2011 14:28:47 GMT -4
None. How many have you examined? So you would not know what to look for? You make the claim you are unable to examine it, would it make any sense to you if you did see underneath the skirts? For myself, of course I have not. I am not the one saying that what I have never seen will never work, that is your department. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 14:35:10 GMT -4
I don't claim that it was so, only that it could have been so. The slow-flying Apollo rockets may well have landed in the mid-Atlantics somewhere much closer the US East coast, but far enough from the spectators so that they wouldn't see this "diving event". The boilerplate was recovered in the North Sea. You are claiming it was the Apollo 13 Command Module. Do you have any idea how much delta-v would be required for a plane change for a launch due east from KSC to the North Sea??? Hint: it's a lot more than just reaching orbit, which you claim the Saturn V could not attain. Typically enough the article about "the lost Apollo capsule" doesn't tell the beginning of this story -- you will probably be surprised to know that the "lost Apollo capsule" was picked up by the Soviet boats in the Bay of Biscay, near France. But it was returned to the USA on September 8, 1970 in Murmansk (a completely different place). There was a big Soviet operation going on in the Bay of Biscay around 10-15 of April, during which part of the Soviet fleet was trying to help one of their submarines in an emergency situation. On April 11-12, 1970 there was a heavy storm in that area (the heaviest since the start of the year), which could explain why the Americans didn't found their own "Apollo capsule" first. Also, do you know that the USA carried out so called "Operation Crossroad" on July 16, 1969 in order to prevent Soviet vessels to follow the launch of Apollo 11? Parts of the 2nd fleet, several submarines and airplanes met 7 Soviet vessels at sea and together with coastal radio stations used radio interfering equipment to hinder the Soviets from following the start of the Apollo mission. Radio interference started at 8.20 and was stopped at 8.47 local time. Apollo 11 started at 8.32. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 31, 2011 14:39:17 GMT -4
The bay of Biscay is still substantially north of Florida, and the Apollo spacecraft were launched in a south-easterly bearing. There is no way that any Apollo launch could have deposited a spacecraft off the coast of Europe without getting into orbit first.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 31, 2011 14:45:13 GMT -4
You are simply marking my words, that's it. I see no substantial counter-arguments from you.My questions have broadened the understanding of the scope of your ignorance of the Apollo program. It is up to you to support an argument, not for us to offer a counter. It's irrelevant whether we do or do not know how the Saturn V rocket was constructed. The only relevant thing is that we know that it flew too slow, much slower than NASA told us that it did.It may not be relevant to you. However if your proposition is to stand up to scrutiny, you better explain why those who have knowledge of rocketry and the Saturn 5 agree it was capable of its mission. And to that end I haven't seen any models which would prove that the calculations presented here are faulty. I see plenty of empty words, but no convincing evidence that would prove NASA:s declared velocities.It's up to you to prove your own proposition. Start by answering your critics. Not by shifting the burden of proof and whining about others not agreeing with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 14:48:26 GMT -4
Right, here's one: the speed you say the rocket was going at 108 seconds into the flight is inconsistent with the acceleration that can be determined by analysis of the first 12 seconds of launch, as the rocket rises past the tower. Why will you not address that? The tower is cleared in about 9,5-10 seconds in Phil Pollacia's film too, still the rocket flies too slow through the cloud. Would you claim that Pollacia shot his film at the right speed at the start and then slowed it down? Why would he do that? Contradiction noted. You don't get to claim respect for someone's professional abilities then accuse them of making mistakes that would have seen them fail to gain the qualifications necessary to do that job in the first place. It's not my style to call my opponents "fools", "idiots" and so on. Or you rather prefer that approach? No, I will not call you those words. I'm sure you are a competent person, with lots of knowledge in the field you are working in, but it doesn't mean that you are always correct about everything. But even if I disagree with you I can still respect you. After all we are adult people, the only thing is that we interpret the same data differently. And my guess is that you are simply not prepared to acknowledge the fact that NASA mooned everyone for 40 years. Hell, they even mooned me all the time. I believed this stuff untill last year. And I see no reson to stick to an old story if new facts turn up and show that it wasn't the way we "knew" it was. Actually, I don't give a damn whether the Americans have been on the Moon or not, that's not important to me. The important thing is what evidence is presented to prove all this. And this so called "proof" don't stand a deeper analysis. This "proof" creates more questions than answers. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 31, 2011 14:58:06 GMT -4
The tower is cleared in about 9,5-10 seconds in Phil Pollacia's film too, still the rocket flies too slow through the cloud. Would you claim that Pollacia shot his film at the right speed at the start and then slowed it down? Why would he do that? No, I make no claims at all and if you actually read my posts you'd understand that this is the gist that everyone is trying to get you to grasp: it is not that the film speed is changed, it is that the analysis on the later part of the film is WRONG. It is not my place to say what he may or may not have done; it is YOUR burden of proof to explain the discrepancy between the calculated acceleration at liftoff, the known behaviour of rockets and the anomalous values you have provided for the speed later in the flight. Don't try and dress this up. That is EXACTLY what you are doing, just with different words. Nor does anyone make such a claim. However, why do you dismiss the views of professionals here? Indeed. And both interpretations cannot be correct. Why is yours more valid than any other? Guess all you want. You are actually talking to someone who has spent a good deal of his life studying this stuff, collecting materials, speaking to people who were actually involved, and generally cultivating a sound understanding of how things work. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 31, 2011 15:01:21 GMT -4
This "proof" creates more questions than answers. Only to those who can be shown not to understand what they're looking at. The calculations you're showing are the equivalent to confusing painted logs with cannons and then insisting that you're right. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 15:03:16 GMT -4
I'm sure you are a competent person, with lots of knowledge in the field you are working in... Yes, that's how we're able to show you your errors. I gave you a list of things that you did wrong, which you continue to ignore. Since this is what I do for a living, and you and your authors are evidently new to this, which of us is the most likely to be incorrect? Sorry, but you don't get to make elementary mistakes and then try to accuse everyone else of "somehow" getting it wrong. No, this isn't a legitimate difference of opinion. You're simply wrong, and we've showed you how. And here comes the inevitable accusations of closed-mindedness. You're simply not prepared for the fact that people know more about this than you do and know that you're wrong, and know that the facts as interpreted by the world's experts support the validity of Apollo. Don't try to make a technical argument unless you really have that knowledge. |
|
