|
Post by ka9q on Nov 29, 2011 7:16:28 GMT -4
10) Nixon resigns funny how information bits are important. i always thought Nixon resigned over Watergate too. And he did. So again you're passing on some hearsay from somebody you don't even know because it sounds good to you? The presidents' men (actually the Committee to Re-Elect The President, or CREEP) had installed phone taps in the Democratic National Headquarters. You know, Nixon's political opposition? That's why it was a big scandal, remember? But the taps weren't working properly so they went in a second time to "fix" them. That's when they were caught by an alert security guard who noticed a taped door lock. The "power block" was the duly elected Congress of the United States, which had made it clear that Nixon would be impeached, convicted and removed from office if he didn't resign. How is this possibly a conspiracy? A conspiracy is just an agreement to commit some crime. Unless the conspirators are total idiots, they usually try to keep these agreements secret. Nixon's impending impeachment in the summer of 1974 was all extremely public and the Constitution clearly gives the Congress the legal power of impeachment. But Apollo wasn't a hoax, so the rest of your statement is irrelevant. The last Apollo moon landing was in December 1972. The Watergate scandal didn't reach its climax until the summer of 1974. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other! As for public polls, one must remember that facts are not decided by popular vote. If as many as 1/3 of a certain group of people thought Apollo was hoaxed, which I seriously doubt, then they were seriously misinformed and/or incapable of clear, critical thinking. And that would remain true even if 2/3 of the people subscribed to that belief.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 29, 2011 7:53:23 GMT -4
trebor why do you want to be so abusive playdor why do you want to be so obtuse I am having a very difficult time figuring out whether you are: a) trolling us, i.e., saying whatever will provoke a reaction without really believing it yourself; b) so wedded to your hoax delusions that you're not even listening to anything we say; c) just very slow Pick all that apply.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 29, 2011 8:06:44 GMT -4
my degrees do not matter here they are not space degrees. i have thought about going back for physics degree I for one would still like to know what 'degrees' you have. And which institution awarded them. It's quite obvious that he lacks any science degree, not just those related to space, physics, mechanics, etc. If he had any degree in any field of science, he would understand the scientific method -- something shared by every field in science. And he'd understand the importance of mathematics and numbers in science. This is also common to every scientific field. The fact that he's clueless about all these things proves that he has absolutely no background in science whatsoever. Sorry, playdor.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 29, 2011 9:42:22 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 Well, that's an interesting list of unproven allegations, irrelevancies and outright falsehoods.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 29, 2011 9:45:37 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 29, 2011 10:49:08 GMT -4
raven i didn't say it had an orange plume Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin said it had a "huge orange plume". was he telling the truth or lying about it? From Google Books, page 14 of Magnificent Desolation. "Neil threw the switch to ignite the powered descent burn. Oddly, we could barely hear it or feel any sensation when a hot orange plume poured out of the engine and into the black space below us." You're welcome, Playdor. I don't know why a Google Books search would have been so hard for you, though. There are many reasons no one believes your claim to have an education in science. One is because you cast ideas in an either/or dichotomy that is typical of crank thinking, not scientific inquiry. You are attempting to force those who lack knowledge about rhetoric and science to accept your idea because they don't want to be in a position of calling someone a liar. The more careful reader would consider that Ken Abraham, the credited coauthor who really wrote the book, was using poetic license. This recognition of an alternative answer, in and of itself, breaks your dichotomy. Those who are even modestly knowledgeable of rhetoric recognize that either alternative presented is calling Aldrin a liar. Fortunately we on this board have some knowledge of science and rhetoric and a long history of dealing with crank thinkers. We do not readily fall into your traps.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 29, 2011 10:57:39 GMT -4
I hope sometime playdor will answer my question, about how a vacuum cleaner works. I'm sure it would be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 29, 2011 11:21:17 GMT -4
WHY don't i believe landing on the moon was possible 1) radiation beltsYou've already demonstrated that (a) you couldn't tell electricity from radiation, and that you weren't even aware of the belts when you started this thread. In reality, the actual doses measured for the crews were very low, and the same data is validated constantly by spacecraft operators. Of course, if you want to make a quantitative evaluation of how much of a dose should have been expected, be my guest. Certainly with all those science degrees, it should be a snap for you. 2) no crater under lmAs several posters have already pointed out, your expectation has nothing to do with reality. The pressure of the exhaust stream on the surface at touchdown was on the order of a few psi. 3) no stars in cislunar spaceAccording to you no one should see stars in space - at all: ...You can't see stars with your own eyes in space because they are too far away. ...the angular diameter of the largest star in the sky is about 1000 smaller than the resolution of a human eye! Then You can't see star when you are in space. Of course, this is utterly and laughably wrong, but not only have you contradicted yourself, you have botched - deliberately, in my opinion - the whole question of whether the crew could see stars in space. Of course they could, under the right circumstances, as many people have patiently explained to you. But you cling ever more tightly to your straw man, avoiding the obvious and correct explanations with all your might. Willful evasion. 4) lm design was a disasterWhich of your "multiple degrees in science" qualifies you to render such an engineering judgment? I work in this field, and the LM design is widely recognized as the first "pure" manned spacecraft and admired for its spare, elegant suitability for its role. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about, but this was a particularly lazy attempt at insulting a design you don't understand. 5) didn't have necessary computing power for lmAgain, regurgitating ignorant nonsense from conspiracist web sites does nothing to bolster your position. The LM certainly did have enough "horsepower" for the job, and was part of an elegant systems engineering solution with its man-in-the-loop approach and robust design. I have written code for, and operated, spacecraft computer systems. Don't copy and paste drivel like this and pretend you have put any thought into it. 6) mylar / kapton film - no damageYou have yet to show why there should be damage matching your expectations. In particular, your notions of how the exhaust should flow, and the heat transfer questions involved, were completely wrong. 7) struts too weakWrong again. They were plenty robust for the job, and somewhere on this board are some simple calculations I did demonstrating just how much margin they had for the landing load. 8) America could not have a dead astronaut on the moon, but had to complete the goalYour grasp of American history and politics is as deficient as your grasp of physics, chemistry, etc. As was already pointed out, the President at the time was prepared to address the loss of crew contingency. 9) NASA run by militaryThis is simply and utterly wrong. NASA was specifically chartered as a civilian agency. 10) Nixon resignsSee response to #8. This is a hilariously inept attempt to link Watergate to an Apollo program that had already been capped long before Watergate. Not only is your speculation fact-free and counterhistorical, your proposed correlation is off by years. 11) footprints without inclusions...I demonstrated exactly how such a footprint was made. On the other hand, you claimed expertise ("I know dirt") which you have yet to back up, and you implied an exhaustive examination of all the footprints in the photographic record, which you manifestly have not made. top ten was probably enoughI agree that it was more than enough to show that you have no idea what you're talking about. Worse, your citation of "evidence" is a shockingly lazy copy-and-paste job of regurgitated claims mixed with a smidgeon of unsupported speculation. Worse yet, you have assiduously avoided definitive refutations of these claims, and failed to even once examine your own certitude in light of your wide-ranging incompetence. So, we can dispense with the notion that you are convinced by "evidence" into which you have put any appreciable effort to investigate. What is your real reason you cling so tightly to your belief Apollo was hoaxed? Is it a religious thing? Are you unhappy that Americans did it? Are you generally anti-science? Are you just trolling?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 29, 2011 12:12:48 GMT -4
so around and around we go, I'll stick with radiation dangerous. "Dangerous" does not mean "Need to fake a Moon landing." Hoax theorists take that juxtaposed comment from Van Allen and apply their own judgment to conclude that Van Allen really meant to preclude the Moon landings. I have in my possession a physical paper letter signed by James Van Allen himself confirming that he has specifically repudiated the notion that the Van Allen belts would have prevented the Apollo missions or have been a danger to the astronauts. In other words, there is no going around and around on this point -- Prof. Van Allen's opinion on the hoax theory is absolutely, unmistakably specific and clear. Any attempt to suggest that Van Allen supports the hoax theory by anything he has said or done is automatically dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 29, 2011 12:24:04 GMT -4
WHY don't i believe landing on the moon was possible You realize that you aren't competent in any of the sciences that are relevant to those points. You realize that the people who are properly qualified in them unanimously believe the Moon landings happened. Is it still your position that the people whose belief is well informed are nevertheless part of some "church" of NASA? 1) radiation beltsYou display no understanding of radiation, and the one expert you attempted to cite to support your position has publicly and explicitly repudiated your belief. 2) no crater under lmNor should there be. The expectation of a large crater comes from ignorance. 3) no stars in cislunar spaceRefuted ad nauseam. Your position is that stars should be absolutely visible or invisible. Our position is that it varies from circumstance to circumstance. You have simply ignored all the evidence for circumstantial variation, even though that's what all your own evidence suggests. 4) lm design was a disasterHow many spacecraft designs have you personally worked on? I've worked on several. Which of us do you think is most qualified to determine whether a spacecraft design is valid? 5) didn't have necessary computing power for lmHow much was "necessary" and why? Do you realize that the Gemini spacecraft had only a rudimentary computer, and that the Mercury and Vostok spacecraft had none? Clearly flying in space does not require a computer; it's just helpful to have one. 6) mylar / kapton film - no damageYou simply beg the question that there should have been. 7) struts too weakComputations, please? 8) America could not have a dead astronaut on the moon, but had to complete the goalPure supposition. 9) NASA run by militaryFactually false. But even if true, it does not follow that Apollo was hoaxed. 10) Nixon resignsNixon was irrelevant to Apollo. All the preparations happened before he was elected. Further, if Apollo had been hoaxed and he discovered it, he was well-motivated to expose the hoax in order to embarrass his political rivals Kennedy and Johnson. 11) footprints without inclusions...Demonstrated otherwise. You're simply running down the list of long-debunked arguments you copied from various web sites. No original thought whatsoever, and no intelligence applied. Doesn't yours sound more like a "church" belief than those grounded in fact and science?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 29, 2011 13:20:39 GMT -4
so around and around we go, I'll stick with radiation dangerous. "Dangerous" does not mean "Need to fake a Moon landing."... Radon is a radioactive gas. It's dangerous. I have a pump in my home specifically installed for the purpose of mitigating this hazard. I'm pretty sure I actually live in my home. And regularly step outside into ionizing UV radiation from the Sun, too.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Nov 29, 2011 13:36:07 GMT -4
A Banana is radioactive.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 29, 2011 14:34:14 GMT -4
Yeah, all that 40K can't be good for you (I mean, c'mon, it even spits out antimatter! ) ; I avoid them where possible. Fortunately I live in a thick walled granite house built right out of the bedrock, so none of those nasty radiomations can get to me. Shh!
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Nov 29, 2011 14:57:11 GMT -4
Heck, better be careful around the monkey house at the zoo...... wonder if they glow in the dark?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 29, 2011 15:21:03 GMT -4
[How is this possibly a conspiracy? A conspiracy is just an agreement to commit some crime. Unless the conspirators are total idiots, they usually try to keep these agreements secret. Nixon's impending impeachment in the summer of 1974 was all extremely public and the Constitution clearly gives the Congress the legal power of impeachment. And it's worth noting that Watergate itself was a conspiracy. And it failed. Over something as simple as a little piece of tape. (And then much longer stretches of audio tape, but anyway.) Nixon couldn't keep his Enemies List a secret, but we're supposed to believe that he kept quiet about Apollo, even though it was Kennedy's baby and he had personal animosity toward both Kennedy and Johnson? (A lot of political rivalries are solely that--political. But Nixon was a surly, surly man.) I admit that Apollo as a hoax would have been in a whole different league from the pettiness of Watergate, but that doesn't mean it's less likely to have been exposed. Actually, it's more likely, because it means more people involved.
|
|