|
|
Post by mcclellan on Nov 1, 2011 5:23:31 GMT -4
You're missing the point here. That's the job of the person doing the analysis. Wrong! It's not my job to do the same thing 100 times only because YOU DESIRE I should do that. I have shown you the method, and I have shown that it works perfectly well when we deal with real (not faked) velocities. So this is MY ARGUMENT. Now it's YOUR JOB to come up with COUNTER-ARGUMENTS and SHOW ME that this method isn't valid. So, go ahead, do this job 100 times if you wish, perhaps you will come up with something that will contradict this thesis. Otherwise your words will remain nothing else than just an empty talk. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Nov 1, 2011 5:35:52 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. Really? Take a look at this little video (Vostok-1 launch, April 12, 1961): www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQCQNh8g-8oJump to 4:41-4:49 and you will see this:  The plume doesn't cast any shadow here, right? Any further questions? |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 1, 2011 5:58:19 GMT -4
Wrong! It's not my job to do the same thing 100 times only because YOU DESIRE I should do that. Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. It's not up to us to disprove your case, even if some of us happen to enjoy that sort of thing. It's up to you to prove it. And if that requires doing something 10 or 100 or even 1,000,000 times, then that's just what you have to do. Many scientific investigations are long and tedious affairs that involve re-running the same experiment many times or collecting data many times from one or a few long-running experiments. That you're too lazy to do what's required is your problem, not ours. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 1, 2011 6:01:56 GMT -4
Wrong! It's not my job to do the same thing 100 times only because YOU DESIRE I should do that. No, it's the job of the analyst to do that to validate the method. It has nothing to do with what I or anyone else desire. This is how real analysis is done. If you don't like that, tough. No, you have shown that in one case it gives a result that tallies with published data and in one case it does not. It is now the anlayst's responsibility to prove that the method is valid by repeating it to back up the correlation. So far it has not risen above the level of lucky coincidence. Again, whether you like it or not, that is how REAL analysis is done by professionals. No. It is your job to prove your method is valid. Again, whether you like it or not, this is how REAL anlaysis is done by professionals. They submit their work for critical review. The reviewers do not need to expend hours doing their own counter-analyses, they have to point out flaws in the proposal and the analyst has to defend or accept those flaws. No, I provided sound mathematical and empirical evidence that your analsys simply does not tally with the acceleration seen in the rocket at liftoff (which is done using the method of observing the movement of an object in relation to a fixed static scale, in this case the launch tower: a verified method that is so well known that I have school exercise books full of examples of it from my physics classes) and how rockets are known to behave. It is YOR responsibility to defend your analysis against those contradictions. Those contradictions are very real, no matter how many times you refuse to acknowledge them. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 1, 2011 8:02:40 GMT -4
Now it's YOUR JOB to come up with COUNTER-ARGUMENTS and SHOW ME that this method isn't valid. You haven't made any serious response to the criticisms of your work to date. And it really isn't a method at all, you have presented an ad hoc comparison that happened to come up with a desired result. A method requires objective verification (theoretically and practically) separately from the case to which it is being applied. You can bluster about the soundness of your work, but this forum is full of people that do professional work in science, engineering and other fields who know about proving ideas to peers. You have failed to make even a basic case. Secondly, the "smoking gun" style of anomaly hunting you use is not accepted in the real world. If you wish to prove Apollo was faked, you have to come up with a a hypothesis that better addresses all the information available. Sticking your fingers in your ears when your critics call you out is not a sign of a good investigator. |
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Nov 1, 2011 8:04:54 GMT -4
Mcclellan If the rocket is travelling at around 108m/s at the time you're talking about, that means it takes about 1 second to travel its own length. Sure doesn't look that slow to me when I watch the footage from www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGNryrsT7OI |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 1, 2011 8:16:44 GMT -4
One more flaw in your work McClellan is your simultaneous reliance and skepticism on NASA as a source of information. You accept the altitude data from NASA while you distrust any information from the same source that disputes your claim. Sorry, but real investigations do not work that way. In fact that kind of data selectivity is an early warning sign of a goal seeking analysis, such as yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 1, 2011 8:23:23 GMT -4
Re: Skylab
Yes, only nine people visited it. However, since they very kindly took lots of film and TV pictures of it, we can see that it was as big as NASA claimed, contained the various instruments NASA claimed, and must have carried the levels of consumables NASA claimed, hence it is hard to see how it could not also be as heavy as NASA claimed.
I'd also like to know why you consider it an 'anomaly' that a bigger rocket is advertised as having a higher payload capacity than the Saturn IB.
|
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 1, 2011 8:40:00 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". They did see satellites. Ones that performed maneuvers and events at the same times and places as the Apollo spacecrafts were predicted to be. That's how the observers knew where to look for them. Hey, you're the one who asked for witnesses. If you were going to summarily dismiss their testimony (as I knew you would) then why did you bother to ask for it? |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 1, 2011 8:43:24 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". You challenged us to provide witnesses who saw Apollo spacecraft in orbit and when we do you shift the goalposts. It is apparent you are an intellectual coward. |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Nov 1, 2011 9:27:17 GMT -4
The only kind of evidence I would accept are concrete calculations based on concrete films, not just someone's "words of honor". Not seen any form of provenance on the films you have accepted so far nor anything else for that matter. How would you know what is concrete? Your criteria seems to be based on not liking anything that does not agree with you and you are trying to use that stance to brow beat your way through. Therefore I would like to think that I am correct in saying you will not accept anything presented. Tell me, how does the Saturn V work? I don't know all the ins and outs but I like to learn. If I have a half fuelled Saturn, how is it going to perform? |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Nov 1, 2011 9:50:00 GMT -4
Wrong! It's not my job to do the same thing 100 times only because YOU DESIRE I should do that. Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. It's not up to us to disprove your case, even if some of us happen to enjoy that sort of thing. It's up to you to prove it. And if that requires doing something 10 or 100 or even 1,000,000 times, then that's just what you have to do. Many scientific investigations are long and tedious affairs that involve re-running the same experiment many times or collecting data many times from one or a few long-running experiments. That you're too lazy to do what's required is your problem, not ours. Let me put it this way: I have one independent calculation that validates the method used to find out the velocity of Saturn V. You have no such calculations. So, as it is now, we have a 1-0 situation in my favor. As it is now, I am right and you are wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 1, 2011 9:58:47 GMT -4
Let me put it this way: I have one independent calculation that validates the method used to find out the velocity of Saturn V. No, you don't have a validation of the method. That's what people are trying to tell you. You seem to think that getting the expected answer in one case is a validation of the method. It isn't, and the reasons why have been adequately explained to you. Yes, we do. Two of them. No, right now you have a dubious homemade method whose flaws you have not addressed, and we have the full weight of an entire industry. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Nov 1, 2011 10:04:29 GMT -4
Mcclellan If the rocket is travelling at around 108m/s at the time you're talking about, that means it takes about 1 second to travel its own length. Sure doesn't look that slow to me when I watch the footage from www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGNryrsT7OIThen watch your own video first before you state anything crazy. Between 6:10 and 7:08 (when the rocket enters the cloud) the image is being changed 12 times! The video lacks the continuity that we have in Phil Pollacia's video. So, this film wouldn't do, we simply don't know WHEN this cloud passage takes place. It could have been taken from a seuence one minute later and placed back in time in this video. Also, the rocket speed during this cloud sequence seems to have been increased, but still, if you use this film to calculate the velocity you will see that it will be around 400 metres in 2 seconds, i.e. ca 200 m/s. Still not enough to live up to NASA:s stated 920 m/s. Good try, but it didn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Nov 1, 2011 10:07:35 GMT -4
No, right now you have a dubious homemade method whose flaws you have not addressed, and we have the full weight of an entire industry. Incorrect. There are no flaws in this method, it worked perfectly well when applied on Ares X-1, so don't be rediculous. The method is thereby validated. |
|
