|
Post by PeterB on Jul 26, 2005 20:11:13 GMT -4
Okay Margamatix, I'll answer your questions. How many astronauts were prepared to swear on the Bible that they had been to the moon? I don't know, but I understand that Ed Mitchell of Apollo 14 swore on the Bible. Good for you. But that doesn't make you right. Many of us can be genuinely convinced of things that are incorrect or wrong. At the start of every Australian Football League season I'm genuinely convinced my team will win the premiership. Doesn't always happen, though (and hasn't since 1990!). In any case, would you like to elaborate on what has convinced you of this? No, because I'm not Christian. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to do so. I'm willing to sign a statutory declaration. But in either case, all that does is affirm my opinion. I could still be wrong. Having said that, though, I'm quite convinced that Apollo was real in every respect, because the evidence is convincing to me, and by comparison, the arguments of those who think Apollo was faked are poor. No, for two reasons. One I've already descibed above. The other is that I don't think those who raise a skeptical viewpoint are necessarily "simply paranoid delusionalists." Some people maybe are. Others are deliberately deceptive (for example, Dave Cosnette at www.ufos-aliens.co.uk, who has had several of his errors corrected repeatedly, but won't change his site). Others again are simply uneducated in the details of Apollo, and don't know why their arguments are wrong. So, again, would you like to tell us why you think Apollo was faked? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Jul 27, 2005 3:33:58 GMT -4
1) What caused the decent stage fuel lines to freeze shortly after Apollo 11 landed. 2) What single item took Buzz and Neil 10 minutes to get right while getting ready to do their EVA, resulting in a change of design for later missions. 3) Why did the Atmosphere purge for the EVA take over twice as long for Apollo 11 as it did for the later ones. 3) How many LM circuit breakers did Buzz and Neil accidently depress while getting ready for their EVA 4) Why did Neil leave his watch onboard the LM? 5) What was Neil's Heart Rate on landing the Eagle? 6) Which comic/cartoon character was a mascot of the Apollo missions? I'm betting that most people on this Board could answer these questions within 10 minutes, probably less. I must confess I could not answer a single one of these Can we have the answers please. Knowing Mr Sibrel's ways, why don't they just go through this swearing bit, (although it does contradict scripture to swear by anything), off their own bat as it were, so that footage can be shown to Bart , his cronies and everyone else. If they swore on other "holy books" such as the Quaran as well, would that help to ram the point home.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 27, 2005 4:19:57 GMT -4
Sticks
I wouldn't worry too much. I'm not too sure of a couple of these myself without a bit of research.
1. Fuel line was full of fuel, but in the shade. IIRC. 2. No idea. 3. No idea, unless it was something to do with opening a second valve. 4. I think the LM's clock/event timer was on the blink, so Armstrong's watch was left on board as a back-up in case it fell off outside. 5. 150-odd? 6. Snoopy?
But what would swearing achieve? Sibrel could still say they were bearing false witness. And it's not as though he's going to include the footage in his own videos - he's already been shown to have excluded video footage which contradicts his claims.
Most of the Apollo astronauts are Christians. They wouldn't swear on the Koran any more than any other Christian would.
Essentially, swearing on the Bible achieves nothing, and wouldn't convince Sibrel. He's not interested in the truth, only in promoting himself.
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Jul 27, 2005 4:32:39 GMT -4
I just wondered it it would help if they pre-empted Bart, so they could tell him that they had done so.
BTW I thought the Snoopy / Woodstock designation was only for the dress rehersal on Apollo X
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 5:33:19 GMT -4
So, again, would you like to tell us why you think Apollo was faked? What would be your opinion on the quote below which I'm currently using as my signature?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 27, 2005 6:31:29 GMT -4
1) What caused the decent stage fuel lines to freeze shortly after Apollo 11 landed. 2) What single item took Buzz and Neil 10 minutes to get right while getting ready to do their EVA, resulting in a change of design for later missions. 3) Why did the Atmosphere purge for the EVA take over twice as long for Apollo 11 as it did for the later ones. 3) How many LM circuit breakers did Buzz and Neil accidently depress while getting ready for their EVA 4) Why did Neil leave his watch onboard the LM? 5) What was Neil's Heart Rate on landing the Eagle? 6) Which comic/cartoon character was a mascot of the Apollo missions? I'm betting that most people on this Board could answer these questions within 10 minutes, probably less. Going strictly from memory: 1.) I don't know. 2.) Rigging the equipment conveyor? 3.) Three? 4.) I don't know. 5.) I don't know, but I have it in my "Apollo 11 Mission Report, Volume 3", at home. 6.) Apollo 10 named the Command Module "Charlie Brown", and the LM "Snoopy". [rant] As a research exercise for space-heads like us, this was fun quiz, but as a tool for gauging a stranger's general level of knowledge, these questions were grossly unfair, and way too deep. Under these circumstances, this test was provocative and confrontational. Yes, these Hoax Believers are inherently annoying because they dis one of mankind's greatest achievements. Yes, they invariably think they know more than they do. Yes, many of them are obstinate, ignore answers, ignore questions, use flawed logic, and refuse to acknowledge that they may be wrong. I know I'm just one member, here, but I feel that the purpose of this site and of this board is to educate people; not just about the bare facts, but about how to find the facts. Better still, they may get to enjoy finding the facts, and want more, and learn how much fun research and figuring things out really is. The Apollo program that inspired so many of us is dead, but we can still use its memory to unlock the doors of curiousity in those who did not know it. We can let in the joy of discovery. Maybe they will learn what a thrill science and engineering is. If not, then at least maybe they can learn to appreciate the glorious things that mankind is capable of, when we put our minds to it. But we can't do any of this if we simply piss them off to the point that they leave. There is a difference between asking someone to defend their arguments, and making them feel defensive. The phrase "Since you obviously know Apollo so well..." is clearly belligerent and meant to belittle whats-his-name's earlier claim of researching Apollo. The questions that followed were so ludicrously over-the-top that that it constituted a total straw-man argument. We need to do better than that. Maybe, if we give him lucid answers, logical arguments, and thought problems for him to work out, maybe he will be able to open his mind and use his head. Maybe; but we have no chance of getting him on our side by belittling him or "putting him in his place," [edited to add] no matter how smug they may be. If they really can't be swayed by logic and/or have no interest in facts, they will either leave or do something to get banned.[/rant]
|
|
|
Post by gdwarf on Jul 27, 2005 6:37:28 GMT -4
So, again, would you like to tell us why you think Apollo was faked? What would be your opinion on the quote below which I'm currently using as my signature? Please start another thread to address this question, but simply from the top of my head, Bart is begging the question. He offers no proof, rather, he relies on your ability to be a rocket scientist. If you are not a rocket scientist then you cannot honestly say that the Lunal Lander could not do what NASA (And every other country, never mind billions of people) say it could do. Just becuase the outer layer looks flimsy doesn't mean it wouldn't work, it had a much more durable inner layer, the outer one was simply to absorb heat, not to hold the air inside.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 27, 2005 6:37:42 GMT -4
What qualifies Sibrel to judge the ability of the ascent module to perform the task claimed of it, simply by looking at it? For that matter, what qualifies him to make this judgement on any basis?
And if it were all faked, would you not think they'd come up with something more in line with what the intended audience would expect such a vehicle to look like? On that note, who was the supposed hoax intended to fool?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 27, 2005 8:41:01 GMT -4
What would be your opinion on the quote below which I'm currently using as my signature? Bart Sibrel is a tabloid journalist who knows nothing about rocketry and spacecraft design, thus his opinion about what is an appropriate LM design is worthless. His comment is equivalent to your trash collector telling what the appropriate procedure is for removing a brain tumor.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 27, 2005 8:46:18 GMT -4
I'm betting that most people on this Board could answer these questions within 10 minutes, probably less. I have to admit I didn't know the answers to any of your questions. But then I've always been more interested in the technology of Apollo rather than historical details. I will take a crack at number 6 however; was it Woody Woodpecker?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 27, 2005 10:18:43 GMT -4
What would be your opinion on the quote below which I'm currently using as my signature?"The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous" (Sibrel)My technical opinion, as an engineer who's actually worked on spacecraft, been involved in flight operations, worked with and helped train astronauts, etc., is that the design of the Lunar Module was admirably suited to its task, and that Sibrel's opinion is quite free of any competence in or knowledge of the subject. My personal opinion is that Sibrel is a liar and a fraud, who wants you to shell out the money to buy a ridiculous story, using really crappy snippets of allegedly "exclusive" imagery which have been available in the public domain, in their entirety and in much better quality, for years (sometimes decades). We spent a considerable amount of time picking apart this argument from ignorance in this thread. However, you should really start a new thread for this topic. Are we to assume you have abandoned your apparent claim that it is suspicious for an astronaut to not swear on a Bible thrust at him by an aggressive publicity hound, who flatly lied to him in order to lure hiem into a confrontation? That's not a very Christian thing to do, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 27, 2005 10:47:43 GMT -4
Logically, Sibrel's statement is begging the question. He doesn't give you any objective reason for believing his conclusion. He simply encourages you to reject NASA's claim.
Technically Sibrel is completely out to lunch. He has no training in engineering and is as qualified to discuss dynamic stability as Brittney Spears is to discuss Chinese monetary policy or protein folding. He hasn't examined its "design". He has only looked at photographs of the finished product. I have studied the LM ascent stage's design in great depth. I can speak authoritatively and knowledgeably about its strucural dynamics, guidance, propulsion, and other key elements of its operation. It's my professional opinion that the LM ascent stage was perfectly capable of flying as claimed. Who is more qualified to make that determination: a qualified engineer, or a part-time video cameraman?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 27, 2005 12:45:04 GMT -4
Which isn't to say that a part-time video cameraman couldn't really study Apollo, learn something about the engineering and physics involved, and actually become a pretty good authority in time.
But Sibrel has done no such thing; he knows very little about Apollo and doesn't understand the principles involved. (The little he does understand, he misrepresents.) All the work he has done is geared towards swindling the ignorant and gullible by denigrating people who have actually done something useful with their lives.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 27, 2005 13:08:05 GMT -4
Okay, I confess I'm surprised that people didn't know the answers, mainly because they can be found very easily within the first 3 pages of the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface journal1) What caused the decent stage fuel lines to freeze shortly after Apollo 11 landed.Vented Helium. Because the accent tanks were pressurised with helium and Mission control didn't want them over pressurising as the temp increased over the mission, they had to vent some of the helium. The vent was aimed at the decent fuel lines and froze them, so the later landers had this vent realigned to avoid it occuring again. 2) What single item took Buzz and Neil 10 minutes to get right while getting ready to do their EVA, resulting in a change of design for later missions.It was the 50-pin Bendix connector that joined the RCU and the PLSS. They had a lot of trouble with it on Earth before going and had complained but were told it'd be okay. It didn't work very well and it took 10 minutes to do up Neil's one. Subsequently it was replaced with an easier to use connector after Neil and Buzz once more complained in debriefing. 3) Why did the Atmosphere purge for the EVA take over twice as long for Apollo 11 as it did for the later ones.Because it had a bacterial filter on it. This slowed down the atmosphere loss rate and was removed in later flights. 3) How many LM circuit breakers did Buzz and Neil accidently depress while getting ready for their EVATwo, they also broke one which Buzz brought back with him, the only part of Eagle to return to Earth. 4) Why did Neil leave his watch onboard the LM?The Mission clock on the LM stopped and when they tried to reset it, it when to all nines. Neil left his watch onboard so that they would have one if they couldn't restart the counter. He was worried about them both breaking their watches on the EVA and having nothing. 5) What was Neil's Heart Rate on landing the Eagle?150. It was the highest of all the Commanders during landing, mainly due to having to take control and land the LM and avoid the boulders, but also because of the strees of being the first to do it. 6) Which comic/cartoon character was a mascot of the Apollo missions?Snoopy. Their caps were called Snoopy Caps, The LM for 10 was called Snoopy and 17 named a crater after him. The character was drawn on the daily schedules and the Astronauts adopted them, especially after the Apollo 1 fire when Snoopy became the symbol of the saftey program. A space suited Snoopy can even be found on the cuff checklists of Apollo 12. Now some feel I've been a little harsh, and this may be true. I'll admit I've been in a grumpy mood and it probably desn't help. But at the same time I get sick of the same old story with people coming in and claiming they have done all the research and know it all, then prove that all they have done is read the HB sites, that they know diddly squat. Now I don't know everything either, but then I'm not claiming I do, but I do know where to find it if I need it, and if people correct me I'm willing to take that onboard and alter my views. Perhaps I did go off the handle a little early in this case, but I really get annoyed having to hand feed people that can't actually do more research than regurgatating Sibral's baloney. If someone is just wanting to ask questions fine, I'm willing to help out and do so politely, but when they come in spouting off how they know it all and we don't, then demand we do all their research to answer their questions, which have already been answered 50 times and are on several of the websites connected with this place, and you know they just aren't here to listen, I just tend to get overly irked and go off.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 27, 2005 13:15:43 GMT -4
Mark Gray is an excellent example of someone who has his primary expertise in video and film production, but who has developed extensive and widely-respected secondary expertise in space flight and space exploration.
|
|