|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 15:59:55 GMT -4
We believe in Apollo's authenticity because that's where the facts point. When you say "We", who exactly do you mean? I must say that I am finding this forum more difficult than others to judge. Most forums consist of a mix of opinions but this one seems to consist completely and entirely of those who believe in the moon landings. Most of the archived threads I have read so far seem to go roughly as follows.... Poster 1. "I believe the Apollo landings were genuine" Poster 2. "So do I" Poster 3 "Me too" Well, what kind of forum is that? I have pointed out to you that astronauts moved no further or higher than they could on Earth, that video footage clearly shows an astronaut being hoisted on a wire, that a surface which should have been covered in dust contained not one mote of it, that the Russians faked *their* space programme too (and backed this up with a quote from a NASA engineer), that despite the ease of doing so, astronauts refuse to swear an oath that they have been there. I have given you a link to an interview with Neil Armstrong which clearly shows his evasion and the interviewer's scepticism, and I have pointed out to you the utter absurdity of suggesting this could have been done anyway in a craft with less computer capacity than a pocket calculator. As we become more technologically advanced, the whole sad saga becomes more implausable, untenable and transparently bogus. Within five years, NASA will 'fess up. They have no choice if they ever wish to develop a more ambitious space programme than the Space Shuttle, which reflects the height of our technical ability at this time.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 27, 2005 16:35:48 GMT -4
Actually, the Space Shuttle represents the height of our technical ability in the 1970s, when it was designed and (mostly) built. And that design involved a considerable amount of political and budgetary compromises. There are two reasons most of the posters here accept the reality of the Apollo lunar landings: 1. In general, we are interested in space, and pay attention to it, and have thus learned more about it (and Apollo in particular) then the average person. Some of us have directly relevant expertise as well. 2. There are hoax believers here (such as turbonium), but most of them don't last because they find their arguments get shredded rather quickly and thoroughly. The problem for them is that they are used to being able to get by with quotes from HB sites, bad physics, and appeals to everyday experience. But the regulars here collectively understand the principles involved, the historical record, and the ways things work in space travel vs. the way things work on Earth. So their claims are refuted, in detail, and after a while they get frustrated and leave, because they can't buffalo people who actually know something about the subject. A couple have been banned, but that is only because they post large amounts of drivel and/or profanity without even acknowledging the explanations offered in rebuttal, including the large amount of research and supporting data provided. Speaking of acknowledging things, when will you start acknowledging the refutations that have been made to your arguments? All you have done so far is repeat your claims, despite our detailed responses. For example, the pointlessness of the "swear-on-the-Bible" argument, or the careful explanation as to why the LM footpads should not have been covered in dust. And so on. You really should stand and deliver on some of your claims before introducing new ones. And it would also help if you spent a little time doing some research on some of these things before bringing them up - Jay's Clavius site contains information on most of them already. The "computer capacity" claim is a good example. There was quite sufficient computer capacity onboard, working in concert with the ground-based computers, to navigate Apollo. You could have learned this with a few minutes of reading. Instead, you are begging the question again ("isn't that absurd?") without understanding the issue. Your approach implies we agree that the relatively primitive (by today's standards) Apollo computers couldn't have done the job - but I for one do not agree, not by a long shot, and I have actually worked on spacecraft computers. You'll have to do more than wave your hands and repeat yourself to support such a claim - and that goes for the rest of your claims as well.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 16:45:55 GMT -4
or the careful explanation as to why the LM footpads should not have been covered in dust. . Eugene Cernan's explanation of how moon dust behaves and yours are diametrically opposed. He said it went everywhere, and got in to all moving parts. Like dust would. Anywhere. You say it would not even be found on the feet of the lunar module after it had landed, using its engine as its braking method. Well, you can just imagine the dust that that would kick up. I'm sure you understand the weight of the Lunar Module, and the physics involved. I'm sure you can understand my confusion.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 27, 2005 16:54:41 GMT -4
When you say "We", who exactly do you mean?
Those whom I know share my opinion on the authenticity of Apollo. As I said, we have known each other for years and can reasonably speak for each other.
Most forums consist of a mix of opinions but this one seems to consist completely and entirely of those who believe in the moon landings.
But how many other forums you've visited have fully-qualified experts in photography and/or engineering? You seem to believe that we are simply pig-headed because we don't meet you halfway or give you the benefit of the doubt. You haven't considered the possibility that people with genuine qualifications and considerable relevant experience all believe the same thing because that is what the facts really say under expert interpretation.
There are lots of people out there with opinions. How many have you encountered who had informed opinions? Don't mistake uncertainty for open-mindedness.
Well, what kind of forum is that?
Have any of your threads gone that way? We have attempted (vainly) to engage you on the merits of your argument. You seem overly eager, instead, to be dismissed.
I have pointed out to you that astronauts moved no further or higher than they could on Earth...
And you were proven wrong. You never did go see Armstrong jump way up the LM ladder, did you? Like all the other evidence presented that contradicts your initial beliefs, you ignored it.
And further, your expectations were based on incorrect premises: assumptions of flexibility and motive. If your premise fails, your argument fails.
...that video footage clearly shows an astronaut being hoisted on a wire
No. You simply stated your conclusion, demanded that it was "obvious", and then declined to examine any contrary evidence or consider any competing alternative. Repeating the words "clearly shows" does not make your argument any more plausible.
...that a surface which should have been covered in dust contained not one mote of it...
But the premise "should have been covered in dust," is simply your personal opinion. You provided no justification for that; just a reference to a completely different scenario. We have pointed out at length why that comparison is invalid and have discussed and refuted in detail your expected premise. The premise fails; the argument fails.
...that the Russians faked *their* space programme too
Likely false, and irrelevant at best. Oberg spent time looking at this claim and discovered it was a vacuous and speculative attempt to explain the sudden absence of people in the program.
...and backed this up with a quote from a NASA engineer...
But are you equipped to discuss what research she did? How do you know that Oberg didn't do more? James Oberg is one of the U.S.' foremost experts on the Russian space program. He is an expert on it, whereas a NASA webmaster is not necessarily.
Be that as it may, guilt by (non-)association doesn't work. So what if the Russians faked part of their space program? How does that prove Apollo was faked? If Tom starts a barfight, why does that prove Tim did too?
...that despite the ease of doing so, astronauts refuse to swear an oath that they have been there.
No, they refused to cooperate with a known charlatan, liar, fraud, and antagonist. You do not know how many would have sworn an oath had it been administered by someone other than their avowed enemy.
I have given you a link to an interview with Neil Armstrong which clearly shows his evasion and the interviewer's scepticism...
You gave a link to an interview conducted by a man who has made it is life's work to discredit and embarrass Neil Armstrong at all costs regardless of the truth, because of his own personal obsession. There are plenty of interviews with Armstrong that are not strained and hostile. The ALSJ for one.
I have pointed out to you the utter absurdity of suggesting this could have been done anyway in a craft with less computer capacity than a pocket calculator.
How much computing power is required to fly to the moon? Be specific. How much computing power is required to fly in low Earth orbit? Be specific.
As we become more technologically advanced, the whole sad saga becomes more implausable, untenable and transparently bogus.
False. I am a professional technologist. You, and those who make your arguments are not. What is happening instead is that a bunch of people, for their own profit and motives, are simply declaring themselves to be experts without any justification, and then spewing a buch of pseudoscientific garbage designed to separate the gullible from their money.
These authors go all out to give you the illusion that reading their books and watching their videos equips you with sufficient knowledge in space travel to discuss the matter intelligently. But in fact they know next to nothing, and what they think they know is generally wrong. They are in the business of giving you only as much information as it takes to get you to believe them.
Most of the conspiracy theorist arguments are of the form, "I expect that (this) should have happened, and since it didn't happen -- or (that) happened instead -- then there's something wrong." The problem is almost always with the expectations. They are almost always scientifically naive, often factually wrong, and very often simply made up. Inuitively appealing, perhaps, but simply opinions nonetheless. Until you are prepared to discuss and defend your expectations, you cannot expect much sympathy from this audience. We are professional scientists, engineers, and other people similarly qualified in technology and science.
We can tell whether your expectations are defensible or not because we deal in those topics for a living. My company does a whole lot of business in fluid dynamics. I know an awful lot about fluid entrainment. I can say that your expectations are thoroughly naive. I assume that's because you have no technical training. That's fine -- not everyone has to be a technician, engineer, or scientist and the world would be in a lot of trouble if they were. But you have to consider that your expectations in topics that you don't fully understand may not be good yardsticks against which to measure observations and judge authenticity.
Within five years, NASA will 'fess up.
I'll take that bet. What shall we make it for?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 27, 2005 16:55:02 GMT -4
They could move higher than they did on Earth, and there are photographs to prove it. The fact that the astronauts were careful not to damage their suits (the only thing keeping them alive) does not prove that they couldn't have jumped higher if they wanted to.
You have not shown us anything. You have only interpreted the astronauts movement to mean he was attached to a wire, but you have not shown us the wire.
Others have explained the way the astronauts moved without the need for wires.
Also exlained.
A rumour that has absolutely nothing to do with Apollo.
If you found out that the winner of a poker game cheated, does that mean every person who ever won a game of poker also cheated?
Why should the astronauts play games with Bart Sibrel? They knew that no matter what they did Sibrel would use it against them, and they were right.
Again, why should Armstrong waste his time? All of the facts that prove the Apollo landings are real are available to anyone who is willing to do a little research. You don't need to talk to the astronauts in order to learn about Apollo.
When did you do that?
Helicopters, airplanes, cars, boats... they're all possible to operate without computers. Why should the LM be any different?
Only to those who don't understand how Apollo was accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by gdwarf on Jul 27, 2005 16:55:48 GMT -4
or the careful explanation as to why the LM footpads should not have been covered in dust. . Eugene Cernan's explanation of how moon dust behaves and yours are diametrically opposed. He said it went everywhere, and got in to all moving parts. Like dust would. Anywhere. You say it would not even be found on the feet of the lunar module after it had landed, using its engine as its braking method. Well, you can just imagine the dust that that would kick up. I'm sure you understand the weight of the Lunar Module, and the physics involved. I'm sure you can understand my confusion. Actually, I'm pretty hard pressed to describe your confusion. It was pointed out that dust would not behave like dust on the moon. Rather, that it got into his suit's moving parts because he did everything short of bury himself in it. He fell in it, stood in it, kneeled in it, picked up samples covered in it kicked it, you name it, he probably did it. However, the LM made no contact with dust short of the bottom of the landing pads. the engine blew most of the loose dust below it away, and as there is no air, it simply flew off, it didn't billow, it didn't stay, it just left. Had the LM been landing on earth, where there is atmosphere to make the dust billow, and a wind to move it around then your worry would be acceptable, but as it's on the moon, it is completely unfounded.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 27, 2005 16:55:51 GMT -4
Your confusion is easy to understand. You take a vague phrase like “the dust went everywhere” and take it to mean things that are unwarranted from the statement. Thus you are confused because the record does not match your incorrect understanding.
To relieve your confusion, take advantage of the expertise of many of you correspondents on this board and educate yourself.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 27, 2005 17:01:14 GMT -4
Eugene Cernan's explanation of how moon dust behaves and yours are diametrically opposed.
No. They are simply observations given under completely different circumstances. I have outlined the circumstances. Address them.
He said it went everywhere, and got in to all moving parts. Like dust would. Anywhere.
But you are unwilling to consider how an astronaut is different than a lunar module.
You stubbornly insist that one scenario must be exactly like another, regardless of what others say. We've given you many reasons why they are not, and you refuse to address them. You simply keep begging the question to the point of annoyance.
You say it would not even be found on the feet of the lunar module after it had landed, using its engine as its braking method.
I do more than "say" that. I describe in detail, using known principles of physics, why that is a plausible, defensible proposition. Address the description.
Well, you can just imagine the dust that that would kick up.
I don't have to "imagine" it. I know the behavior of entrained particles. I know the behavior of flowing fluids. It's part of my job. I don't have to resort to irrelevant comparisons, grasping at straws, because I understand the first principles and can reason and generalize from them.
I'm sure you understand the weight of the Lunar Module, and the physics involved.
What does the weight of the lunar module have to do with whether dust should be found on the footpads?
I'm sure you can understand my confusion.
I detect no confusion; only a determined effort to believe one side over the other regardless of fact or discussion. And frankly, no I do not understand it.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 27, 2005 17:07:07 GMT -4
When you say "We", who exactly do you mean? I must say that I am finding this forum more difficult than others to judge. Most forums consist of a mix of opinions but this one seems to consist completely and entirely of those who believe in the moon landings. There is a core group of regular posters to this forum who have judged Apollo to be authentic. It is this group to which “we” refers. Well, what kind of forum is that? I like it here because we are able to share our understanding of Apollo and space engineering. Almost every week I learn something new. It is this shared experience and the broadening of my knowledge that keeps me coming back. I have pointed out to you that astronauts moved no further or higher than they could on Earth And we explained the reasons why this is generally true and pointed out examples in which the astronauts jumped much higher than on Earth. I that video footage clearly shows an astronaut being hoisted on a wire No, the video does not show this. You just repeatedly begged the question and ignored all contrary evidence. that a surface which should have been covered in dust contained not one mote of it No, you just said that it should be without providing any valid reasons why. We explained why you are wrong. that the Russians faked *their* space programme too (and backed this up with a quote from a NASA engineer) Speculation. No evidence. that despite the ease of doing so, astronauts refuse to swear an oath that they have been there. They merely refused to cooperate with known liar and a fraud who used deceitful tactics to ambush them. I have given you a link to an interview with Neil Armstrong which clearly shows his evasion and the interviewer's scepticism I cannot comment because I have not seen the linked interview. and I have pointed out to you the utter absurdity of suggesting this could have been done anyway in a craft with less computer capacity than a pocket calculator. I don’t recall you saying this, nonetheless, what you think is absurd is irrelevant because you obviously lack the expertise to make that judgment. The Apollo guidance computer could adequately perform the tasks it was required to perform.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 27, 2005 17:13:14 GMT -4
or the careful explanation as to why the LM footpads should not have been covered in dust. . Eugene Cernan's explanation of how moon dust behaves and yours are diametrically opposed. He said it went everywhere, and got in to all moving parts. Like dust would. Anywhere. You say it would not even be found on the feet of the lunar module after it had landed, using its engine as its braking method. Well, you can just imagine the dust that that would kick up. I'm sure you understand the weight of the Lunar Module, and the physics involved. I'm sure you can understand my confusion. Your confusion is due to the fact you're not considering the difference between the two cases. During the landing, there was dust blown outward from an impinging exhaust stream, traveling almost exclusively under the footpads, which were made of "non-sticky" materials anyway. The dust that came in with the astronauts was from walking on and falling into the dust in spacesuits made of a rather rough material, picking up instruments and tools which had been lying in the soil, and so on. The cases are quite distinct. My confusion comes from your apparent disinterest in reading the explanations already made on this subject. As to your assertion that NASA will admit the moon landings were faked within 5 years: You're on. I'll bet you, oh, ten thousand dollars. BTW, the "weight" of the LM doesn't really enter into the dust-on-the-footpads argument. And dust in a vacuum doesn't behave like dust "anywhere" - certainly not like dust on the Earth's surface. If you spent a little time watching Apollo motion imagery, you'd notice that.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jul 27, 2005 17:31:24 GMT -4
I have given you a link to an interview with Neil Armstrong which clearly shows his evasion and the interviewer's scepticism...You gave a link to an interview conducted by a man who has made it is life's work to discredit and embarrass Neil Armstrong at all costs regardless of the truth, because of his own personal obsession. There are plenty of interviews with Armstrong that are not strained and hostile. The ALSJ for one. I thought he was referring to the BBC Patrick Moore interview clip here; in which case, his reading of Mr Moore's intonation & body language are completely at variance with everyone else's: Patrick Moore has long been of the opinion (sometimes quite pithily expressed) that hoax believers' claims are complete rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 27, 2005 17:33:52 GMT -4
Did I make a mistake? I thought he was referring to the Sibrel exchange.
There's no question that Patrick Moore thinks the hoax theories are utter rubbish.
One must consider also that Armstrong is not a naturally charismatic person. It's not helpful to compare Armstrong to other people; some people are naturally at home being interviewed and others are uncomfortable whether they're lying or telling the truth. So if you say Armstrong is ill at ease, you have to ask, "compared to what?"
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jul 27, 2005 17:43:07 GMT -4
Possibly: the hopping around subjects is hard to follow. Given that, I read it as referring to the clip most recently provided (where I'd have described Armstrong as "not entirely relaxed" rather than "ill at ease", but these things are pretty subjective).
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 27, 2005 18:02:28 GMT -4
They are subjective, which is why they are usless as proof. Even if we generously grant that Armstrong appears uncomfortable, that is not proof for someone's supposition why Armstrong is uncomfortable. To say he "must" be uncomfortable about a hoaxed moon landing is 100% circular. The UFO people wil say he's uncomfortable because he has to lie about having seen space aliens on the moon. Who is right? Or are they both wrong?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 27, 2005 18:09:49 GMT -4
|
|