HB Contradictions

[Retrograde]

bob said:

This is actually more of what I had in mind when I started this thread. I think self-contradictions usually occur in one of two ways:

(1) The HB is simply parroting what he has read in the conspiracy literature. When the various sources contradict each other, the HB is unable to recognize it because he hasn't thought things through. He just mindlessly repeats the conflicting arguments.

(2) As the debate evolves and the hoax claims are discredited, the HB is forced to modify his theory so he doesn't have to alter his preconceived belief. This usually results in all sorts of contradictions because the HB must adopt new arguments that are incompatible with his earlier statements.

At BAUT, some of the 9/11 controlled demolition people were arguing about some janitor who reported hearing a WTC basement explosion at the moment of impact of the airplane, something which, if it were true, would contradict their own theory at least as much as contradicts the towers-brought-down-by-airplane-plus-fire theory.

N

[gwiz]

One from Hufschmid:

1) They should have tested the LM with an unmanned moon landing and return before they risked a crew.

2) 1960s computer technology was too primitive to carry out the mission.

Which would surely make it safer to land with a crew than without one.

[linuxboatr]

gwiz said:

One from Hufschmid:

1) They should have tested the LM with an unmanned moon landing and return before they risked a crew.

2) 1960s computer technology was too primitive to carry out the mission.

Which would surely make it safer to land with a crew than without one.

I was under the impression the Soviet lander was to perform its landing completely automated with the cosmonaut along for the ride. Thus, 1960s computer technology was up to the task if the Soviets we were working in that direction. Subsequent developments have borne out a Russian penchant for fully-automated or ground based control (i.e. Progress cargo ships).

And I don't believe the American LM was engineered with the idea of remote control in mind. The computer was there to assist but the LM HAD to be piloted down. It could do an automated abort (which never happened and many were unsure how well it would work) but the control did not exist for an automated landing per se. I suspect weight would have been a big issue. I don't know, I'm sure someone more familiar with the LM can correct me if I'm wrong.

Matt

[octoman]

Keep in mind the American vehicle was to be piloted by cowboy rockstar fighter jocks. The pilots maintained local control of the vehicle, as fitting for an independent-minded culture.


The Russian vehicle was yet another part of an overall central-authority/central-planning mindset. Cosmonauts were largly along for the ride, just as the Russians generally were largly just along for the ride of Sovietism.

[PhantomWolf]

Not trying to to derail the thread, but I will point out that unlike the Vorstok which was basically just a cannonball with a person inside, even the Mercury capsules could be fully controlled by their pilot, though as far as I know, it's ability was never actully tested or used during the flights.

[Bob B.]

phantomwolf said:

...even the Mercury capsules could be fully controlled by their pilot, though as far as I know, it's ability was never actully tested or used during the flights.

There were several instances during Mercury where automated system failed requiring the pilot to take control. John Glenn, for example, had all sorts of problems with his gyroscopes and automated attitude control system. He controlled attitude manually throughout most of the flight. Furthermore, the questionably status of his heat shield forced him to reenter with the retro package attached. This necessitated that he override the automatic sequencer and perform many of the reentry tasks manually.

[PhantomWolf]

well I did say as far as I knew. I probably got it mixed with that it wasn't until Gemini that they actually changed their orbit.

I'm going to guess that he was pretty happy that the pilots had stuck to their guns and demanded that they be given flight controls rather then just being passangers like the Soviets.

[Count Zero]

phantomwolf said:

I'm going to guess that he was pretty happy that the pilots had stuck to their guns and demanded that they be given flight controls rather then just being passangers like the Soviets.

That would be especially true for Gordo Cooper. Near the end of his Mercury flight, his capsule lost all attitude indicators and the automatic stabilization & control systems. He flew the rest of the mission - including retrofire and re-entry - manually.

[gwiz]

phantomwolf said:

well I did say as far as I knew. I probably got it mixed with that it wasn't until Gemini that they actually changed their orbit.

To clarify, the pilots had manual attitude control of Mercury, but both attitude and orbit control of Gemini.

Mercury had no orbit control apart from the retro-rockets.

[octoman]

One of my least favorite arguments, that "if we went why haven't we been back."

The vikings reached North America, but it was hundreds of years later when Columbus sailed. Then it was hundreds of years before decent hotels were built.

The first of anything is just the first. Everything, including hardware and mission mindset, is designed with a minimum of comprehension of the needs of the mission, and a minimum of the needs of the explorers, but with a maximum of "what if" contingency.

I expect the new moon program to be, in many ways, finishing the first session of exploration and technical development.

Then we'll get the second generation, when information from the first exploration drives the design of the mission and equipment much harder, much less naively than the first generation.


The third generation should include equipment designed on the moon, or in orbit, or by people who have been on the moon or in orbit. A "lunar" and "space" architecture style will evolve as the needs of the users are taken into account more fully.

Eventually we'll be able to buy trips to the Apollo Landing Site Museums. Nice hotels, Toyota LRV's, tourist one-size-fits-most pressure suits with that "pre-rented" odor. . .

But somebody has to find a way to make it all pay. These people (http://www.asi.org/index2.html) think there's money to be made.

Columbus was the Apollo program for the "new world." After the big expensive government-sponsored missions, commerce and industry set to work.

Then idealists like the pilgrims decided to go there and give a try at permanent occupation. When Lunar infrastructure can support permanent occupation, it'll happen.

Eventually "Crater Parson" (http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Earth?opt=-l&lat=37.3&lon=171.2&alt=1000&img=MoonTopo.evif) will become the "Sin City" (http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/132_parsons.shtml) for people to go visit.

I'll have to check it out, just the once.

The HB contradiction here is the difference between their naive expectations and the reality of market economies and reiterative (evolving) technological growth.

[gdwarf]

mrgorsky said:

My favourite contradiction is the self-contradiction inherent in the "Apollo went to the moon but faked all the photos because the found aliens there" argument.

Apollo was grounded because of a reduction in public interest, leading to a reduction in political will, leading to a reduction in funding.

Nothing would be more guaranteed to provide NASA with the public interest, political will and funding necessary to continue missions of this nature than finding alien life on the moon (or Mars for that matter.

Surely the argument should be ... given that fact, why didn't they fake finding aliens in order to protect their future funding?

Every time I see this argument I wonder why the HBs don't say:
"Well of course they didn't announce it publicly, but they told the government, they now get paid x times more then they were before, but it's all on the sly."
Obviously there are holes in that argument, many of them, but it was the first thing I thought of when reading that. Despite the wild claims they make it seems that many HBs have no imagination, they simply parrot what's been told them by others.

As for contradictions,
NASA has the budget and resources to kill many potential 'whistleblowers', they even kill some of them with cancer!

These people who spent all of their time thinking about how to be good secret whistleblowers get killed, but the HBs who loudly claim that everything is false are allowed to live. Surely if NASA had a long-range cancer ray killing of Sibrel wouldn't be that hard.

[Retrograde]

gdwarf said:

Surely if NASA had a long-range cancer ray killing of Sibrel wouldn't be that hard.

Oh, I have no doubt that any reasonably competent government could take out Mr. Sibrel without the slightest trouble. But who cares? Do his activities actually threaten the interests of any person not living in goofland?

N

[Fnord Fred]

They would if the moon landings actually were a hoax...

Then again, if he ever does get cancer/diabetes/artherosclerosis/herpes he's going to blame it on NASA anyways. So it's probably in the gov'ts best interests either way that he just dies naturally.

[Retrograde]

fnordfred said:

They would if the moon landings actually were a hoax...

Well, true enough. I violated the working assumptions of the thread there...

Then again, if he ever does get cancer/diabetes/artherosclerosis/herpes he's going to blame it on NASA anyways. So it's probably in the gov'ts best interests either way that he just dies naturally.

I think the manner in which Bart Sibrel dies is wholly irrelevant to the government's interests, unless they decide they need to turn an irrelevance into a martyr and off him...

[voyager3]

This isn't really a "contradiction" but thinking about the "Apollo 11 astronauts saw aliens" stories and the alleged break in transmission I've realised that if these aliens were operating on the moon, for whatever reason, (and why would they have been there?) then they would surely have been able to monitor Earth TV and radio broadcasts and they would surely have known about the Apollo programme? If they had wanted to keep their presence on the Moon secret from us then they would have had several months warning to re-locate and to ensure that there was no evidence of their activities. If they had wanted to monitor the progress of the mission, they all they would have to do was monitor the transmissions. Surely any alien civilisation capable of interstellar travel would find it comparatively easy to monitor us from close range and leave us unawares?