|
Post by gwiz on Nov 28, 2011 11:03:46 GMT -4
There is plenty of docking film about if you look. Recent examples are from the missions to the International Space Station and the Chinese Shenzhou 8 dockings with Tiangong 1.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 28, 2011 11:33:14 GMT -4
To be fair, Youtube is acceptable if someone is just interested in a historical overview .
However, if playdor intends to look for "anomalies", he has to remember that Youtube videos are usually very severely compressed versions, often many generations removed from the originals. This compression may (1) hide the anomalies that playdor wants to find, and (2) introduce "anomalies" that are just compression artifacts. It is essential for the sort of research that he wants to do that he work from clear, hi-res versions with few artifacts. This may involve getting materials from libraries, or even purchasing it if necessary.
I'm sure that playdor would not want to argue that he's found an anomaly, only to discover that it was "noise" introduced through multiple copying and/or compression.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Nov 28, 2011 11:44:26 GMT -4
Not forgetting a dvd has some method of coding and processing on it.
Playdor, Gemini is part of the pit you have fallen in. That involves engineers as well, worthy of your thought I think.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 28, 2011 12:36:31 GMT -4
playdor, before you go "trying to learn" about docking in space, would you please answer my question last repeated in reply #1050? I ask it again, and I will keep asking it until you answer: Given your demonstrated lack of understanding of everything to do with Apollo, and given the many gross errors of basic understanding as well as simple errors of fact you have committed here - why do you not question your own insistence that Apollo was faked? Why don't you even consider that you might be wrong, and all the experts are right? This is not a trick question. I know that if I claimed something, but didn't really know anything about the subject, and my supporting claims were shown to be riddled with errors, then I would ask myself why I was so sure in the first place. But you continue to steadfastly claim Apollo was faked, even through your admitted ignorance of the associated topics, and Is it a religious thing? Are you angry that Americans first landed on the Moon? Are you simply unwilling to admit you made a mistake? Are you just trolling this board?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 28, 2011 19:10:25 GMT -4
There are non-Apollo sections on this forum, and I fail to see what James Mccanney has to do with your Apollo hoax claims.
I suggest you either post your superimposed Apollo 17 images or withdraw the claim about those images.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 28, 2011 21:49:43 GMT -4
8) America could not have a dead astronaut on the moon, but had to complete the goal Why was a speech prepared in the event that Armstrong and Aldrin died on the Moon? Sounds like they accepted a dead astronaut on the Moon as a possibility, albeit a frightening one. And don't forget that three Apollo astronauts had already died in an accident on the ground. Was this covered up? No, NASA fixed the problems and went on to complete the goal. Made-up accusations aren't facts, sorry. Certainly most of the Apollo astronauts had a military background and several Mission Control personnel did too, but that doesn't make NASA itself a military agency. Watch All The President's Men if you want to know why Nixon really resigned. If you're going to assert that his resignation had to do with an Apollo hoax, I'd like to see some evidence. The Gish Gallop is getting more desperate all the time.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 21:51:41 GMT -4
WHY don't i believe landing on the moon was possible 1) radiation belts Please provide any evidence they are a significant hazard. Why do you think there should be a large crater? From the photos it is clear there is a very broad and shallow blast crater with fluid errosion marks. 3) no stars in cislunar space Except of course they did see stars in cis-lunar space.. and in fact needed to. As has been pointed out to you again and again. Do you have problems reading? 4) lm design was a disaster Actually the LM design was superb, it had nothing that was not absolutely required. 5) didn't have necessary computing power for lm It had all the power needed. And nothing that was not. What do you think it was not powerful enough for? And do be specific, 6) mylar / kapton film - no damage Actually, this is false. And this is especially noticeable in the Apollo 15 images where some of the film was detached. The 'struts' were designed to work in 1/6 g and were strong enough to do so. Do you have any actual evidence they were not capable of doing this? 8) America could not have a dead astronaut on the moon, but had to complete the goal Actually, I am sure they could have at the time. False, Irrelevant and pointless. 11) footprints without inclusions... Irrelevant as has been pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 28, 2011 21:52:27 GMT -4
WHY don't i believe landing on the moon was possible 1) radiation belts I guess Gemini 10, Gemini 11 and the ISS are hoaxes too then. Is that what you think? www.clavius.org/techcrater.htmlAre you an expert on designing space vehicles now? Please explain in detail why the LM design was a disaster and how much computing power the LM should have had.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 21:53:19 GMT -4
laurel Fair enough i did this originally with a transparency on the monitor. as you can tell i am not very good with photo shop Thanks for the joke.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 22:07:29 GMT -4
trebor GEE i thought it looked pretty good If you seriously thought that then you badly need help. And do you have any answers to my questions? I'm guessing not.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 28, 2011 22:13:46 GMT -4
WHY don't i believe landing on the moon was possible 1) radiation belts 2) no crater under lm 3) no stars in cislunar space 4) lm design was a disaster 5) didn't have necessary computing power for lm 6) mylar / kapton film - no damage 7) struts too weak 8) America could not have a dead astronaut on the moon, but had to complete the goal 9) NASA run by military 10) Nixon resigns 11) footprints without inclusions... top ten was probably enough The Eleven Commandments of the Church of Willful Ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 28, 2011 22:20:33 GMT -4
so around and around we go, I'll stick with radiation dangerous. No one here is saying that radiation isn't dangerous. They're saying it wasn't dangerous enough to prevent astronauts from flying to the Moon and returning safely.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 22:23:23 GMT -4
And here is what Professor Van Allen stated about your radiation claims : Specifically those mentioned in the FOX TV show and parroted by you. "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen I'll stick with radiation dangerous. Radiation is indeed dangerous... depending on the dose. And the length of exposure.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 28, 2011 22:25:49 GMT -4
Yeah. You do know that James Van Allen didn't dispute Apollo, right? How does that change your opinion?
And if you don't know anything about radiation, how do you know that you're right and people who do but have no problem with the reality of Apollo are wrong?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 28, 2011 22:26:02 GMT -4
laurel 9) how sure are you that the "space race" wasn't a way for the military to finance the research of rocketry and specifically ballistic missiles technology? Military had the bomb, they desired to have a delivery system that would reach any part of the globe. Burden of proof. You're the one making the claims, you show us the evidence that NASA is a military agency. Fattydash and his legion of sock puppets already tried this argument and they didn't have any proof either.
|
|