|
Post by sts60 on Nov 14, 2005 8:48:54 GMT -4
You still misrepresented the truth. You can't deny it as the archive doesn't lie.
If you can point out a specific instance of me misrepresenting the truth, I will be glad to clarify or retract such a statement. But please be specific as to which post in which thread.
I also never once said the batteries wouldn't work, I said they wouldn't work for as long as they allegedly did.
By "wouldn't work" I was simply paraphrasing what you said. You had indicated in BAUT threads that things heated up and cooled down in very dramatic fashion; the reasonable inference was that you were claiming they wouldn't last very long at all.
But I'll be very careful to quote you word for word from now on, because I'm not interested in margamatix-style quibbling - it only detracts from the issue.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 14, 2005 14:45:53 GMT -4
3- No. But the capsule did typically descent straight down from about 195,000 feet. This one just makes me crraazzzyyyy Can't wait to get to it, it's all based on a misinterpertation of a oddly made pictoral graph... Dave
|
|
|
Post by robertd on Nov 16, 2005 8:22:43 GMT -4
Moonman, I have always been interested in people's beliefs and how they come to believe them or then come to change them. You obviously are motivated to spend a good deal of time in an unsupportive internet environment. Considering the effort involved I was interested in why, and whether you had experience with something really powerful. So the following are not meant as a challenge but as a query into the "trigger mechanism", if you will, that motivated you to want to try to persuade people that you had a more clear understanding of the events that occurred related to the Lunar lanndings. Would it be fair to say that you had no direct participation in the hoax? I think you mentioned you were 42 years old, but I just wanted to be clear. Do you personally know of any live person who states that they were part of the hoax? Do you possess any documents that appear authentic which outline a hoax or look to be a written record that shows a particular device or portion of the equipment could not do what it was designed to do? I also wondered about how you thought about your readers. It appears you could agree that an undecided or impartial person, lacking direct knowledge of their own, must then rely on the weight of the evidence to decide any issue in the historical record. That seems obvious, otherwise you would not be spending time trying to gather data and rationally presenting your thoughts, but I didn't want to assume even that. I also wondered whether you could agree that the weight should be measured by quality and not quantity. Would it be fair to say that weak evidence does not strengthen other weak evidence? Having several varied lines of argument is good, but each needs to be reasonably supported by some body of data, analysis and review to be considered worthy of adoption as a belief. If you can find time to comment it would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 16, 2005 9:53:30 GMT -4
Would it be fair to say that you had no direct participation in the hoax? I think you mentioned you were 42 years old, but I just wanted to be clear. Do you personally know of any live person who states that they were part of the hoax? Do you possess any documents that appear authentic which outline a hoax or look to be a written record that shows a particular device or portion of the equipment could not do what it was designed to do? I also wondered about how you thought about your readers. It appears you could agree that an undecided or impartial person, lacking direct knowledge of their own, must then rely on the weight of the evidence to decide any issue in the historical record. That seems obvious, otherwise you would not be spending time trying to gather data and rationally presenting your thoughts, but I didn't want to assume even that. I also wondered whether you could agree that the weight should be measured by quality and not quantity. Would it be fair to say that weak evidence does not strengthen other weak evidence? Having several varied lines of argument is good, but each needs to be reasonably supported by some body of data, analysis and review to be considered worthy of adoption as a belief. Hello Robert. I began reading NASA's site in 98. I still believed in the landings at that time. I have nothing to do with the space industry and don't personally know anyone who does. I am 42-years old. I began questioning myself over NASA's pictures. The hoax sites didn't exist in 98 and if they did I did not read them. After the Fox show aired, which I still haven't seen, many hoax sites sprung up. I have read only a few of them. I reviewed some of the images, video and audio clips I had saved in 98 and some of the claims the HBers were making made a whole lot of sense to me. For example, I have audio clips from NASA that give immediate reponses from the astronauts, which as you know is impossible. NASA did not add a disclaimer to the the cip or the site stating they edited the clip to take out beeps or pauses between questions and answers depicted on the clip. It was hoax site that educated me on the fact immediate responses were impossible. Since I had two or three clips that came from NASA's own site I was convinced right then and there, without further showing, that it was a hoax. To me, it didn't matter if everything else added up this didn't. In other words, if you get caught lying in court about one thing nothing else you say is credible. Anyway. this was in 2001, four years ago. I read message boards and discuss the hoax briefly here and there with other lay people. I was surfing the net Saturday and came across BA site. I have read it before but only discovered his message board on Saturday. I immediately joined it and started my thread, called I will prove the landings were a hoax. I planned on presenting 3 or 4 arguments only. I was immediately jumped on, which I knew would happen, but I did not know how busy that site was on a daily basis. I am not educated on every single NASA issue like some are and it was impossible for me to answer every single question put to me in a timely fashion. Anyway, here I am. Since Saturday I have spent many hours reading the links provided. I discovered some interesting facts that did not make any sense from some of the links provided. For example, the ascent module had 2 more batteries then the descent module, and they were larger batteries as well, and yet the smaller descent module batteries provided over 77 non stop hours of power while the larger ascent batteries were only required to provided 2 or 3 hours of power, which makes zero sense. Turns out the information on Wiki encyclopedia was wrong. The have the batteries mixed up. Also interesting to me is the fact no hoax site knows about NASA's trip to Sudbury Ontario. Many sites claim the moon rocks came from Hawaii, or Antarctica or they were made in a lab. I checked BA board and no one had ever discussed NASA's trips to Sudbury, which told they weren't aware of it either. Sudbury and one spot in South Africa are the only two places on earth to have rocks with the same type of rocks that are found on the moon and apparently on Venus. We will be debating this topic later in the debate thread so please watch for it and join in. I enjoy the readers responses. Many try to make a joke about my lack of knowledge but that's fine with me. Many google search answers to my questions because they didn't know the answer either. I believe I have asked many great questions and advanced claims that have never been mentioned before, and I'm not done yet. Hopefully this covers all of your questions. Thanks for the message, Robert.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 16, 2005 10:12:12 GMT -4
For example, the ascent module had 2 more batteries then the descent module, and they were larger batteries as well, and yet the smaller descent module batteries provided over 77 non stop hours of power while the larger ascent batteries were only required to provided 2 or 3 hours of power, which makes zero sense. Turns out the information on Wiki encyclopedia was wrong. The have the batteries mixed up.
That's why you should examine authoritative sources, such as the LM Operations Handbook linked for you on page 2 of the debate thread. Anyway, the descent stage has three, not two, more general-use batteries than the ascent stage. The descent stage batteries provided the bulk of the juice for descent operations as well as for surface operations.
Also interesting to me is the fact no hoax site knows about NASA's trip to Sudbury Ontario.
Perhaps not, but NASA has plenty of information about geology training there on their own web site. It's not like they've been keeping it quiet. Good heavens, they were pumping out press releases left and right back during Apollo, discussing the astronaut training.
|
|