|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 21:30:13 GMT -4
My dad saw Apollo 8 as it orbited before TLI. Where did he live at that time (Dec. 1968)? |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 21:33:30 GMT -4
My question was quite simple And has already been answered. If you'd stop ignoring my posts you'd have your answer already. Go back and read this thread again so that you can stay current with the discussion. Give me a link then to where you have posted that specific reply. It's hard to keep track of so many pages and so many posts. |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Oct 31, 2011 21:50:03 GMT -4
My dad saw Apollo 8 as it orbited before TLI. Where did he live at that time (Dec. 1968)? We lived on Guam. He was in the Naval Reserve and flew all over the south Pacific. I believe he said he was on Palau at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 22:02:34 GMT -4
I've still not received any good explanation on how far from the cloud level the rocket is in this picture, i.e. 3 seconds since the rocket entered the cloud:  Does it look as if the plume of Apollo 11 is hanging 1,8 km above the cloud level here? Note the distance between the hole and the shadow to the left, ca 2 shadow lengths. And here are the screenshots to compare with:    And here is where the rocket was 3 seconds later, i.e. 6 seconds after the cloud entry.  Does it look as we have a distance of almost 5500-6000 metres here between the rocket plume and the cloud level? Because if we would "buy" NASA:s declared speed of 920 m/s, then the distance SHOULD be just that, almost 6 kilometres! But no, the rocket seems to be VERY VERY close to the clouds, one can see it with the naked eye, or, speaking differently, one doesn't have to be a rocket engeneer to see this. So, how would NASA defenders explain this "minor" problem? |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Oct 31, 2011 22:30:29 GMT -4
I've still not received any good explanation on how far from the cloud level the rocket is in this picture, i.e. 3 seconds since the rocket entered the cloud: Your guy measured the speed of the shadow moving across the clouds; he did not measure the speed of the Saturn V. You need a lot more trigonometry to calculate the speed of the Saturn V using that method. You will need to know the pitch and heading of the rocket and the elevation and bearing to the Sun. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Oct 31, 2011 22:49:27 GMT -4
McClellan, If the third stage never reached orbit, then what did observers see in the sky before, during and after TLI? Who did see all that? Names, please. And who COULD see the Apollo rockets when they were far away from Florida on their way across the Atlantics? Does JayUtah's link provide enough names for you? If so, are you ready to answer my original question? |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 1, 2011 0:00:10 GMT -4
We lived on Guam. He was in the Naval Reserve and flew all over the south Pacific. I believe he said he was on Palau at the time. My Dad spent some time in the Palau Islands as well. Unfortuantely it was the island of Peleliu in September 1944. |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 1, 2011 2:50:04 GMT -4
You have been shown the way of how these calculations can be done, so what's the problem, go ahead and apply this model to as many rocket launches as you wish. You don't seem to understand a rather basic issue here: this is your claim, so it's entirely up to you to prove it. Don't let the fact that some of us enjoy disproving hoax claims for fun fool you into thinking otherwise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the claim that Apollo was faked is certainly an extraordinary claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 1, 2011 4:16:01 GMT -4
You're missing the point here. That's the job of the person doing the analysis. He has applied that technique to two examples and obtained wildly different results. In one case his calculated speed matched the published speed, in one it did not. In a proper scientific analysis the next stage is to find out which of those is the anomaly. You don't get to assume that because one analysis matches published figures it must be correct. You have to prove that.
This is the difference between professional and amateur analysts. When the professional gets two wildly different results from two analyses he goes back and checks to see if there are errors and repeates it as many times as he can to show either that the method is sound and the result is genuine or that the method is flawed and hance must be discarded. The amateur notes one as matching expected results and assumes the method is sound and every other anomalous result is genuine too. One of those guys gets paid to apply his skill. The other has to resort to publishing on YouTube.
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Nov 1, 2011 4:18:26 GMT -4
I'm not going to require impossible things from you. Just name any names you have heard of then, people who have seen the Apollo rockets flying in space. Otherwise you are just creating yourself a convenient argument by saying that "many people have seen these rockets flying above their heads before the TLI". Seen this method of argument before, when I was nosing through ATS or DI? By the same token I can say the football match in Manchester last week did not take place. I do not know anyone in Manchester so do not know where to start but given time I could dig out a list of people. Same here for Apollo. Given time a list can be derived from various means and whilst you cannot get a list this second to satisfy your demand and I think this is part of the bluster to divert, you will in time get your list and your argument is a chocolate fire guard. There are many reasons why it falls apart and you will avoid them. Anyhow, you have a raft of unanswered questions. How high are the clouds? |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Nov 1, 2011 4:44:54 GMT -4
I've still not received any good explanation on how far from the cloud level the rocket is in this picture, i.e. 3 seconds since the rocket entered the cloud: Your guy measured the speed of the shadow moving across the clouds; he did not measure the speed of the Saturn V. You need a lot more trigonometry to calculate the speed of the Saturn V using that method. You will need to know the pitch and heading of the rocket and the elevation and bearing to the Sun. Here are the basics: One shadow length (note that I'm not talking about metres at all! - just one shadow length) on the clouds corresponds to one rocket length upwards. We do not know how long the shadow actually is and we don't need it, all we have to do is to measure how long it takes for the shadow to move its entire visible length to the left (regardless of whether the shadow is 50 or 170 meters). And then, by simple logic, we also know that the rocket has moved its own length (in this case 110 metres) upwards. Do you understand this simple principle? You would need the trigonometry ONLY if you wanted to calculate the EXACT LENGTH OF THE SHADOW -- but, as stated above, we don't need to know its length. Case closed. Apollo 11 flew way too slow through the cloud. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Nov 1, 2011 4:53:42 GMT -4
Does JayUtah's link provide enough names for you? If so, are you ready to answer my original question? People see UFO:s all the time, and many of them can swear by God that they have even seen the aliens. Should we take their words for the truth? How can we be sure people didn't see a satellite? This kind of "witness evidence" isn't proof of anything. The only kind of evidence I would accept are concrete calculations based on concrete films, not just someone's "words of honor". |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 1, 2011 4:56:30 GMT -4
Here's another bit of math for you to chew on, maclellan.
According to you the rocket was only doing 104 m/s, give or take 4 m/s, at 108 seconds into the flight. Let's take the upper extreme of that: 108 m/s, as it simplifies the equations greatly.
Since a = v/t, and both v and t = 108, a = 1 m/s^2.
d = 1/2 at^2
with a = 1, d = 1/2 t^2, = 0.5 x 108^2 = 5832 metres.
That means that with constant acceleration the rocket can only have travelled 5832 metres. According to you the cloud layer it passes through is between 6 and 8 km in altitude. That mens that if the rocket had gone straight up it might just be getting to that cloud layer within a second or two of the 108 seconds you specify as relevant in this analysis.
Unfortunately:
a) Rockets do not move with constant acceleration. It increases as the rocket burns the fuel and the mass reduces. That means it is in fact going to have travelled less that 5832 metres, so be nowhere near the cloud layer by 108 seconds.
b) The rocket does not travel straight up but follows a parabolic curve. If it has travelled 5,832 metres it is nowhere near that altitude, therefore should be well below the cloud layer it is passing through at that time.
c) The acceleration of the rocket observed in the launch phase as it cleared the tower is much higher than the 1 m/s^ calculated from your analysis. That means the rocket must have reduced acceleration between liftoff and getting to the cloud, if your figures are correct. This runs entirely contrary to the known behaviour of any rocket. It requires a capability to throttle the engine down that there is no evidence the engine possessed, and it requires an explanation (as do your suggestions of partly fuelled rockets) as to why they deliberately reduced its performance mid-flight rather than using its full capability and doing what it was built to do.
Your suggestion of partially fuelled rockets also makes no sense. For one thing we can see that the tanks were filled because they got covered in ice as a result of the cryogenic fuels inside. Secondly, again, only partly fuelling the rocket means they are deliberately running it at below maximum performance. Why?
I don't expect much in response, since you have already demonstrated your unfamiliarity with the record (your suggestion that only stage 1 was fuelled is quite clearly not true as stage 2 is seen to fire) and an inability to interpret what you are seeing anyway (your assertion that the rocket is going down because it appears to be doing so as it moves away from a viewer).
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 1, 2011 4:57:50 GMT -4
One shadow length (note that I'm not talking about metres at all! - just one shadow length) on the clouds corresponds to one rocket length upwards. We do not know how long the shadow actually is and we don't need it, all we have to do is to measure how long it takes for the shadow to move its entire visible length to the left (regardless of whether the shadow is 50 or 170 meters). And then, by simple logic, we also know that the rocket has moved its own length (in this case 110 metres) upwards. No, because the plume is also opaque to sunlight and, believe it or not, casts a shadow. The shadow is longer than the rocket. |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 1, 2011 5:07:50 GMT -4
Case closed. Apollo 11 flew way too slow through the cloud. If any case deserves to be closed here, it's your own due to your refusal to even address, much less satisfy the many valid objections that others have raised to it. Here are just the two that I've helped raise: 1. An ultra-conservative estimate of the launcher velocity from irrefutable 3rd party evidence (i.e., the known time for the rocket to clear the known height of the launch tower) is still much greater than that produced by your analysis. 2. Obvious shock condensation clouds appear at precisely the time (T+66 sec) NASA reported it to have achieved Mach 1. Other forum members have pointed out problems that are just as serious as these, if not more so. How many do you intend to continue to ignore as you declare victory? |
|
