|
|
Post by theteacher on Oct 6, 2010 15:43:43 GMT -4
It seems to me that an HB would be eager to weigh himself down to the Earth weight equivalent of an Apollo suit and PLSS, video himself jumping and leaping, and post the result on YouTube saying, "See? the Apollo astronauts should be able to jump six times as high and far than this!" Could it be that they have tried this, realized that a six times extrapolation matches the lunar footage, then squelched plans for any such revelation? I'd like to add that 1. The conversion factor is not 6: clarionfoundation.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/spec-tech-jumping-on-the-moon/ and www.nyskies.org/articles/pazmino/moonjump.htm for the math details. 2. The weight of a suited astronaut equals approximately 2 g, which is the point at which you cannot leave the ground when you "jump" - according to the graph in the former link. If we take the stiffness of the suit and the restrictions of the ankle and toe movements into account, I think it is a fair estimate, that a suited astronaut will absolutely not be able to leave the ground in a 1 g environment despite any physical shape. |
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Oct 12, 2010 17:07:44 GMT -4
The LM which was chromakeyed onto a rear projected set and lifted up from that set, crashed back down onto the surface of the moon and was replaced by a model on a set of the moon...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevehislop on Dec 16, 2010 15:59:05 GMT -4
Jesus...it just hit me that there are 10 times more postings at the Hoax section here as in the Reality section of this forum...amazing. I always look only at the reality section, because the hoax is absolutely of no interest to me. I´ve just recently argued with a couple of HB on YT and it is such a waste of time and energy...you cant give ´em the education that they are lacking but which they damn needed to understand what a great achievement the Apollo program was. Unbelieveable what tremendous hate and mega insults are within the comments there...ist a shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jul 13, 2011 20:33:06 GMT -4
I was just thinking about some of the contradictions that exist in the usual hoax arguments. I thought perhaps we could compile a list of these contradictions. The purpose of this thread is not to debunk the arguments, but only to point out the contradictions between mutually exclusive arguments. I’ll start off with the following: ------------------------------ Argument #1 – The hoax was perpetrated to fool the Soviets about the USA’s technological capabilities. Argument #2 – The USA paid off the Soviets so they wouldn’t expose the hoax. Contradiction – If the Soviets knew about the hoax and accepted a payoff, then clearly they weren’t being fooled. The motive for perpetrating the hoax in the first place therefore doesn’t exist. ------------------------------ Argument #1 – Insufficient computing power existed in the 1960s to land on the moon. Vertical takeoff and landing under rocket power is inherently unstable. Argument #2 – The LRRRs were placed on the moon using robotic landers. The lunar rock and soil samples were collected using unmanned robotic spacecraft. Contradiction – The ability to land a spacecraft on the moon was beyond 1960s technology, yet NASA used that same insufficient technology to land on the Moon. The contradiction is obvious. ------------------------------ Argument #1 – Objects in space cannot be cooled by the vacuum of space. Argument #2 – The moon’s temperature varies from +250 degrees F in the sun to -250 degrees F in the shade. Contradiction – The moon is an object in space. If objects in space cannot be cooled by space, then how can a +250 sunlit surface cool to -250 when it moves into shade? ------------------------------ That’s enough for now. Do you have any to add? Most of these are pointless arguments. Some of the theories have been retracted by the same people that gave them. The moon missions were hoaxes.. www.youtube.com/yesiamawizardjonny. www.youtube.com/whitejarrah |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 13, 2011 20:50:56 GMT -4
Most of these are pointless arguments. Some of the theories have been retracted by the same people that gave them. The moon missions were hoaxes.. Of course -- your argument is different! Hadn't heard that one before... Doesn't it strike you at all interesting that most of the people who made up their mind that Apollo was a hoax, made it up on the basis of poor, incomplete, and contradictory ideas? Are you so certain, then, that you are the first and only hoax believer to have made up their mind entirely on the basis of a solid, well-tested, and internally consistent idea? I'd also call this an HB contradiction; "most of the beliefs are stupid, but mine is good -- besides, there's lot of other evidence." (Aka, the stuff that was previously rejected as being obviously wrong). |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 13, 2011 21:04:10 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by twik on Aug 31, 2011 12:18:17 GMT -4
1. It can't simply be economics that keep us from returning to the moon. If we could do it, cost would be no object.
2. There are so many more important things to spend tax money on here on earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Aug 31, 2011 12:27:37 GMT -4
1. It can't simply be economics that keep us from returning to the moon. If we could do it, cost would be no object. 2. There are so many more important things to spend tax money on here on earth. Is that really an HB contradiction? Though I can see a certain kind of sanctimonious misanthrop taking relish in both making the stock "spend money on what I want" whine and also trying to trash a great achievement on the basis of it being an establishment achievement. |
|
|
|
Post by slang on Oct 17, 2011 16:22:18 GMT -4
Wow. This one (on BAUT) has me speechless. The Apollo landings must have been a hoax, because the arguments on the internet arguing for the hoax are so terribly bad.   |
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Oct 18, 2011 12:53:56 GMT -4
I'm pretty sure ArcAngel is in fact a True Believer™.
One of the Grandson's fanboys.
Many (most?) Hoax Believers are just that irrational and ignorant.
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Oct 19, 2011 22:12:30 GMT -4
Yes. More than once I've accused an Apollo denier of being disingenuous or dishonest because I simply couldn't accept that they could seriously believe what they were saying. This usually gets them angry enough to block me. But they'll let me make any other argument I want.
So my tentative conclusion is that they honestly believe in what they're saying, as hard as that may be to accept.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Oct 23, 2011 14:49:46 GMT -4
It could be entirely consistent with the Urinal Deuce conspiracy theory that all conspiracy theories are actually government conceived.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Oct 31, 2011 20:01:58 GMT -4
This has all too likely been mentioned, but the idea that the computers at the time were too primitive for a manned mission, yet unmanned automated lander missions to plant reflectors are allegedly feasible smacks this one of contradiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 1, 2011 3:17:29 GMT -4
It certainly does. Especially given that it should be fairly obvious that an automatic lander should require at least as much computing power as a manually piloted one.
|
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Jan 21, 2012 19:01:05 GMT -4
The only contradictions that I have been able to find are with the official story. since that cannot be right. The hoax must be true.
|
|
