Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 31, 2005 15:15:50 GMT -4
But I am not "trolling". I am not simply here to aggravate people. I believe we did not land on the Moon. The most I have been offered here is proof that we could have landed on the Moon. And I don't even accept that. You seem to have made up your mind long before you ever got here and you’ve demonstrated little interest in having your beliefs challenged. Thus I’m a little perplexed as to why you are here. If you didn’t come to this forum to learn from the collective knowledge and experience of the people here, then why did you come, or more appropriately, why have you stayed? There seems to be little of benefit being achieved here. I know that Hubble cannot clearly see the Moon, but this is simply because it was designed to view objects which are much further away than the moon. Had it been differently designed, it could have. No it couldn’t. Resolution is a function of aperture, and the Hubble’s aperture was limited by the size of the Space Shuttle’s cargo bay. The Hubble is simply not big enough.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 31, 2005 15:28:49 GMT -4
The most I have been offered here is proof that we could have landed on the Moon. And I don't even accept that. The most we've been offered is the claim that it could have been faked (or so say those who don't understand how monumentally difficult it would be to fake this stuff), and we don't accept that. Did you miss Bob's post above in which he stated that such a telescope would require a primary lens or reflector a minimum of ONE-HUNDRED EIGHT METERS IN DIAMETER? This is a limitation of the laws of physics. A primary smaller than that simply cannot resolve something the size of Apollo hardware on the lunar surface from this distance. And this window cannot be transported with them to the moon because...? Not quite. It's not a matter of Hubble being farsighted, but that the objects it images are much, much, MUCH larger than anything left by man on the lunar surface. Meaning, had it been designed with a reflector ONE HUNDRED EIGHT METERS IN DIAMETER. What exactly are you going to lift this behemoth into orbit with?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 15:30:14 GMT -4
Well I'm here because I thought that the Apollo Hoax forum might be a suitable forum to discuss my belief that the Moon landings were a hoax.
As I have said before, you should have made it clearer that disbelievers in the Moon Lie were not welcome here (although I have to say that I have not generally been made to feel unwelcome)
I have spent 33 of the past 36 years believing that we *did* land on the moon, and only 3 believing that we didn't. So you can hardly say I have a fixed agenda.
You are surprised that I have stayed. Well, I have a thick skin, although I am sure that many others have been intimidated by the collective forum response- as Turbonium referred to yesterday.
But this is called the "Apollo Hoax forum" so you can't really object to my finding my way here.
And, most of all, this is the internet, and I am entitled to air my views on the internet, and I believe in the democracy of the internet.
When we look back, in 50 years time, our conclusion will be that it was the internet that finally killed the Great Apollo Lie.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 31, 2005 15:40:56 GMT -4
Only if the lie is that Apollo never made it to the moon. Time will show it the other way around from what you think. All of the evidence points that way.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 15:41:28 GMT -4
Did you miss Bob's post above .? No, I have replied to it but please give me a chance. He only posted it 13 minutes ago. Look, I am on my own here and cannot reply to everybody, straight away, on every point, particularly as I may have to check out links you have supplied in the meantime. I will just add that I spent about an hour today on BobB's "Rocket & Space Technology" website, and although I only got the chance to look through about a sixth of it, I will be back, and I do try to check out every reference given to me. It didn't happen, and time will prove me right.
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Jul 31, 2005 15:58:21 GMT -4
So what clinching piece of evidence convinced you it had been hoaxed?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 16:10:08 GMT -4
So what clinching piece of evidence convinced you it had been hoaxed? No single thing. I suppose I had never thought about it seriously before. I read a neutral, one-page article somewhere- maybe Focus magazine?- and I started thinking about it. Once you actually think about things, it doesn't take very long to realise how absurd the whole thing is. The Moon is 600 times further away than anywhere we had been before or have been since. The Moon is in an environment which ranges between -150 degrees celsius and +250 degrees celsius with one sixth of earth gravity and in a total vacuum. We sent two human beings there using a Moon Lander which appears to have been built from cobwebs and static. And we did all this at a time when you couldn't get a car to start on a damp morning. I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 31, 2005 18:49:56 GMT -4
Going to the Moon is very hard, but that is exactly why they did it.
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." - President John F. Kennedy
If we only did what was easy then we wouldn't have ever discovered North America. Challenges like going to the Moon help us evolve.
Believers in the moon hoax theory are welcome here as long as they remain polite and at least try to keep an open mind. If they ignore every fact that contradicts their beliefs then it is a waste of our time to talk to them. They should also be willing to back up their claims.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 18:57:18 GMT -4
You are an American Indian?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 31, 2005 19:15:06 GMT -4
They didn't originate here either.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 31, 2005 20:07:56 GMT -4
The Moon is 600 times further away than anywhere we had been before or have been since. The Moon is in an environment which ranges between -150 degrees celsius and +250 degrees celsius with one sixth of earth gravity and in a total vacuum. We sent two human beings there using a Moon Lander which appears to have been built from cobwebs and static. And why does any of this mean we didn't land on the Moon?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 31, 2005 21:08:41 GMT -4
Once you actually think about things, it doesn't take very long to realise how absurd the whole thing is.
But are you really thinking? You talk a lot about aspects of science and engineering. Wouldn't "thinking about it" mean acquiring the necessary scientific and engineering understanding?
The Moon is 600 times further away than anywhere we had been before or have been since.
Distance is largely irrelevant. There aren't any qualitative differences between flying to the moon or flying to some point near Earth. Yes, there are certain scalable issues with consumables, but that's simply a matter of being able to hoist the necessary groceries into orbit. That takes a big rocket. But the science is largely unchanged. It's approximately 15 times farther to Las Vegas from my house than to go to my office. Does that mean the driving is so much more difficult? No; it's just more time on the freeway.
Nor are you in any more danger near the moon than in Earth orbit. You can drown in two feet of water, for example, so 10,000 feet of water is not 5,000 times more dangerous.
The Moon is in an environment which ranges between -150 degrees celsius and +250 degrees celsius with one sixth of earth gravity and in a total vacuum.
And the stratosphere is an environment with 600 mph winds, temperatures of -50 F, and air pressures only a fraction of that on Earth's surface. No one could enter than environment, right?
I'm watching, on television, James Cameron dive to the wreckage of Titanic, an environment with an unbreathable atmosphere, temperatures of below zero Celsius, and thousands of pounds of pressure per square inch. Absurd?
Space is only one of dozens of hostile environments engineers routinely deal with.
We sent two human beings there using a Moon Lander which appears to have been built from cobwebs and static.
How much have you really studied the design and construction of the Apollo lunar module? Do you understand the physics of skin-and-stringer construction? Have you seen the ship without its outer cladding, so that the structural elements are visible? How much do you really know about structural engineering?
You're trying to say that Apollo is absurd. What I think absurd is a layman trying to pass judgment on a unique and well-studied piece of engineering after seeing only a few photographs of it. Shame on you.
And we did all this at a time when you couldn't get a car to start on a damp morning.
Apples and oranges. Consumer technology is meant to be affordable, and so doesn't contain every bit of engineering that is possible to include. The 1960s also gave us the SR-71, still an aerospace marvel. It also gave us the Boeing 747, still the workhorse of the commercial aviation.
I don't think so.
But you haven't really thought, have you?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 1, 2005 7:27:15 GMT -4
Not to mention my own personal favourite aerospace marvel, Concorde.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 1, 2005 9:37:31 GMT -4
I do examine all the evidence you show me and I am grateful to everyone for the time taken in replying.We're happy to help. Honestly, though, I don't understand how you weigh the evidence. I haven't seen a question yet that this group hasn't answered in some detail, using detailed knowledge of physics, engineering, photography, television technology, and even theatrical lighting and staging. All for free. Sibrel, whom you quote so approvingly, is a demonstrated repeat liar, who misrepresents and selectively edits his "evidence", and demonstrably doesn't know what he's talking about (e.g., the "LM tanks should be 1/6 the size of the Shuttles" howler). This sounds to me like you are predisposed to strongly discount whatever we tell you because you have a strong desire to believe Apollo was a hoax. It does not sound to me like evaluating evidence on its merits. Another explanation that comes to mind is the "both sides" fallacy that plagues the media these days, where reporters feel compelled to get "the other view" for a story, even if the other view is stark raving lunacy. (No, I am not calling you a lunatic.) But I personally think it's because you want to believe the Sibrels, Kaysings, et al. Everything I say on here is "opinion only". I do not pretend to have proven my case- it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as we all know.But you have stated your case in stark terms of absolute belief, without developing any of your claims. That's what's frustrating about these threads. But I am not "trolling". I am not simply here to aggravate people. I believe we did not land on the Moon. The most I have been offered here is proof that we could have landed on the Moon. And I don't even accept that.I don't think you're a troll, either; not like the late unlamented oxxo, for example. But so far you've been no more amenable to actually following up your claims. It seems quite clear that you have no intention of seriously reconsidering your stance, no matter what explanations we give to you. So what do you hope to accomplish here? If you don't want to learn anything, well, that's your perogative. If you intend to convince us the landings were hoaxed, then you'll have to come up with some realistic arguments (in particular, ones which haven't been thoroughly debunked years ago). Common sense dictates that it would be easier to build a telescope capable of examining the surface of the Moon than it would be to send a manned craft there. There you go again. You made this statement already. We pointed out that: (a) building a telescope to conclusively image Apollo sites would be a massive undertaking, not done with "ease" - your word; (b) hoax believers would simply deny the imagery anyway - any image from such an instrument would of necessity be taken with electronic imagers and processed through computers; HBs would just say the images were computer-generated outright; (c) the claim is simply an HB strawman, an empty rhetorical trick, since the enormous expense of such a project to prove a historical fact would get anyone who proposed it laughed out of office; and finally (d) the entire point of Apollo was to send men to the moon and return them, with science that could only be done in situ. You haven't addressed a single one of the flaws in your argument. All you've done is complain that I misrepresented you - because I said you thought it was "easy" after you proclaimed the "apparent ease" of the project! Human beings are the most fragile and delicate machines imaginable, capable of survival in only the tiniest window of environment.In training for my volunteer gig as a firefighter, I've spent time in a "flashover simulator". The fuel burns as you watch, the heat in the compartment increases, the smoke banks down, and eventually it gets so hot that the gases (like carbon monoxide) ignite. You practice applying short bursts of water without turning everything into steam and burning yourself. After a while, the air coming from your SCBA starts to get hot. That's because it's many hundreds of degrees down where you're crouching. If you stood up, you'd stick your head into a much hotter layer and get burned. The environment was certainly different, but Apollo used the exact same approaches - design equipment for the environment it will be in, and avoid hazards you cannot reasonably keep out within your design envelope. Humans have been kept alive by such approaches in a variety of deadly environments long before Apollo. Your general statement of disbelief carries no weight. You must show that there were challenges which could not be successfully mitigated. I understand you're a layman in those areas (as I am a layman in many areas), but there is nothing stopping you from learning about the relevant disciplines in order to issue a credible challenge. Otherwise, your claim may be rejected as an unsupported appeal to incredulity (or whatever the appropriate logical term is). I know that Hubble cannot clearly see the Moon, but this is simply because it was designed to view objects which are much further away than the moon. Had it been differently designed, it could have.False. See here for a nice Hubble picture of the Moon. And no instrument with a primary mirror on the order of magnitude of HST's size can successfully image Apollo landing artifacts. Thanks to everybody for the answers by the way- In another place, I am debating with a MD and he tells me that I am wrong "because I have seen the remains on the Moon through a telescope"Well, he's mistaken. Maybe he's seeing some mountain peak and shadow combination or something. But we can quite confidently rule out through basic optical laws that he's actually discerning Apollo artifacts.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 1, 2005 10:01:09 GMT -4
Once you actually think about things, it doesn't take very long to realise how absurd the whole thing is.Nope. The problem is that you want to disbelieve it, so you apply your everyday experience to space travel, and dismiss it without actually considering the technical issues. The Moon is 600 times further away than anywhere we had been before or have been since.You still haven't explained why this is a problem. But we've told you why this appeal to incredulity fails: Once you're in orbit, getting to the Moon is actually a pretty simple matter of orbital dynamics. (Do you deny humans orbited the Earth in the 1960s?) And the lunar round trip is short enough that it vastly simplifies the problems of shielding and consumables. Those issues will make sending humans to Mars much harder. The Moon is in an environment which ranges between -150 degrees celsius and +250 degrees celsius with one sixth of earth gravity and in a total vacuum.You haven't explained why this problem is too hard to overcome. Not at all. Things in orbit, be they Yuri Gagarin's capsule or the ISS, regularly cycle between even greater extremes of heat and cold. The vacuum actually simplifies the thermal management issues in many ways. The lower gravity of the Moon also makes things easier in some ways - less total impulse required, easier to carry equipment. We sent two human beings there using a Moon Lander which appears to have been built from cobwebs and static.False. It looks like it was made from things like aluminum, with the lightweight insulation materials appropriate for use in a vehicle intended purely for low-gravity vacuum operations. You really should read through the LM Operations Handbook to try to understand the issues. This claim is another and purely pejorative appeal to ignorance. This is a classic debating tactic, but you can't fool people who have actually taken the time to learn something about it. And we did all this at a time when you couldn't get a car to start on a damp morning.Last time I checked, there were no carburetors on any part of the Apollo stack. Seriously, though, that claim is quite irrelevant. The USSR of the time was notorious for the truly execrable quality of its consumer goods, but excelled (and still does) in aerospace expertise. Today, in nearby Washington, DC, the Metro escalators break down with monotonous regularity, but I have every confidence if I walked up the broken escalator at National Airport I could be in your country the same day after a flight on a 747 - another piece of 1960s technology. I don't think so.You're not thinking. That's the problem. You're just parroting what you've heard from some con men you want to believe.
|
|