PDA

View Full Version : GREAT Moon Hoax debunking site



The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jan-18, 04:23 AM
I just want to put in a plug for a great debunking site: www.clavius.org (http://www.clavius.org). The author is a regular here at the BABB, and I won't embarrass that person by saying who (but I encourage the author to step up and accept accolades).

I am brushing up on my responses for a TV show coming up (info about which I put in my newsletter which you all get now, RIGHT?), and the Clavius site was the first place I went. It is really really well done, clear and concise. My site may tackle the Fox show, but Clavius goes after the conspiracy in general, and is the best one on the web.

2002-Jan-18, 07:58 AM
[quote]
On 2002-01-17 23:23, The Bad Astronomer w
January 18, 2002 1:27 A.M. pst
VISITED THE SITE
could not see an easy way to leave myself
a missSpelled word to see if I could
go back later and change a WORD spelling.
[x] 10 min

johnwitts
2002-Jan-18, 12:08 PM
Is HUb' on drugs?

James
2002-Jan-18, 12:18 PM
On 2002-01-18 07:08, johnwitts wrote:
Is HUb' on drugs?


One never knows...

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Kaptain K
2002-Jan-18, 03:53 PM
Is HUb' on drugs?
I don't think so. He uses a very old computer (8088?) and text only connection (which may or may not explain the odd appearance of his posts).

JayUtah
2002-Jan-18, 03:58 PM
I encourage the author to step up and accept accolades.

(blush) Thanks, B.A., that's my site. I have to legitimately thank B.A. for the inspiration to do it. Badastronomy.com was the first web resource I consulted, having been led there by a CNN article.

I'd like to thank John Witts, the Bad Astronomer, and many others who either post or read here, for their contributions, suggestions, and criticisms which have helped make the site what it is. I only regret I can't spend more time filling in the obvious holes and smoothing the rough edges.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jan-18, 04:38 PM
On 2002-01-18 10:58, JayUtah wrote:
I encourage the author to step up and accept accolades.

(blush) Thanks, B.A., that's my site. I have to legitimately thank B.A. for the inspiration to do it. Badastronomy.com was the first web resource I consulted, having been led there by a CNN article.

I'd like to thank John Witts, the Bad Astronomer, and many others who either post or read here, for their contributions, suggestions, and criticisms which have helped make the site what it is. I only regret I can't spend more time filling in the obvious holes and smoothing the rough edges.



I'm bummed. Nothing on minianomalies or other really funny stuff. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

JayUtah
2002-Jan-18, 05:06 PM
Nothing on minianomalies or other really funny stuff.

Au contraire. http://www.clavius.org/house.html

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jan-18, 06:23 PM
On 2002-01-18 12:06, JayUtah wrote:
Nothing on minianomalies or other really funny stuff.

Au contraire. http://www.clavius.org/house.html


I sit corrected. I recognize our buddy's work. Well done.

Squirm
2002-Jan-18, 07:59 PM
There were two good articles to be found here (http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/winter_spring01/index.htm) by Mr J. Windley, entitled 'A Study of Suppressive Science' and 'See No Evil Hear No Evil'. Unfortunately, they have since been removed?

JayUtah
2002-Jan-18, 08:41 PM
Squirm, why do you and Carrot Cruncher continue to scour the web in a vain and dubiously motivated effort to attack me personally? You are the one on ApolloHoax.com who criticizes me every time I discuss the credibility of a witness, yet you seem to spend a lot of effort trying to dig up "dirt" and try to embarrass me out of the debate.

Just as the mathematics teacher Carrot Cruncher quoted there is not me, this individual at the CIA is not me. Why don't you spend some time actually learning about the things you profess to criticize, instead of trying to prove by lame insinuations that I'm some sort of professional disinformationist?

Why is it that you're so interested in finding an excuse to dismiss me?

Squirm
2002-Jan-18, 10:21 PM
Jay: Squirm, why do you and Carrot Cruncher continue to scour the web in a vain and dubiously motivated effort to attack me personally?

I'm sorry if you see this as a personal attack. It wasn't meant to be.

You are the one on ApolloHoax.com who criticizes me every time I discuss the credibility of a witness,

It's not so much that I criticise you (although in Tom Barons case, I did) more I contest the points where upon I happen to disagree.

you seem to spend a lot of effort trying to dig up "dirt" and try to embarrass me out of the debate.

I admit to having done that on a couple of occasions. I recall appologising soon(ish) afterwards. I apologise again if I have caused offence at any time.


Just as the mathematics teacher Carrot Cruncher quoted there is not me, this individual at the CIA is not me.

I was only jesting.

Why don't you spend some time actually learning about the things you profess to criticize, instead of trying to prove by lame insinuations that I'm some sort of professional disinformationist?

I am learning, everyday. My life is unrecognisable to the one I left behind six months ago—I have purchased more books over this period than any other time in my life! That is why I am posting less.

My last three books:

The Coming Anarchy — Shattering The Dreams Of The Post Cold War
Apollo 14 — The Mission Reports
Think for Yourself! — Questioning Pressure to Conform

And I am wanting the following (long out of print):

Murder on Pad 34 (Erik Bergaust)
The Rivals (Adam Bruno)

My brain is pounding under the weight of controversy.

Why is it that you're so interested in finding an excuse to dismiss me?

I'm not. I actually tried to clarify my opinion (http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=672&forum=5&start=25#nature") with regard to yourself before Christmas, but it went unacknowledged.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-01-18 17:23 ]</font>

AstroMike
2002-Jan-19, 01:21 AM
Squirm, I think Jay's site is very well written and has scientifically accurate information.

JayUtah
2002-Jan-19, 02:39 AM
I'm sorry if you see this as a personal attack. It wasn't meant to be.

Well, the way I see it, B.A. started this thread to draw attention to my site and say nice things about it. Your post implied that I was possibly writing articles about disinformation and conformity for the CIA. That's a bit like walking into someone's testimonial dinner and urinating in the punch bowl.

(although in Tom Baron's case I did [criticize you])

Yes, and that's still an open matter. I just lack time to write at length on it right now. Some of your comments were well founded.

It's far down on the list of necessary revisions, not because I have a problem with it, but because it's going to take lots of time to research and rewrite. If I put other tasks below that, they'll never get done and I can do them now in a few minutes. Unfortunately the link between my "working" site and the "production" site makes it easier to leave the old content up, even if I now disagree with some of it.

I contest the points where upon I happen to disagree.

As I would expect. You and I have much upon which we disagree, which itself doesn't upset me. But when I point out, for example, that Bill Kaysing doesn't satisfy many of the accepted criteria for expert witnesses, you accuse me of trying to refute him by assassinating his character. Whether or not you agree that's what I'm doing, it seems hypocritical of you to take the position you do, yet try to undermine my arguments by attacking me.

I admit to having done that on a couple of occasions.

It's understandable to want to know your opponent. And you've probably found more of my relatives on the net than I have, which is actually kind of amusing. I don't think it's the actions so much as the timing in this case.

I was only jesting.

I love a good joke, but the British sense of humor (beyond Monty Python, that is) is something I just can't get the hang of. My tolerance tends to wear thin in this sort of situation. That's because lurkers abound, and they might not get the joke either. I don't want to end up reading on some web site, "It's been shown that the Clavius webmaster works for the CIA." You may think that's farfetched, but I've seen it happen many times that some private joke shared on public web space gets propagated all over and taken seriously.

So if you think I'm making too big a deal out of this, I really do apologize. I appreciate nothing better than a fine sense of humor. I've just learned by sad experience how easy it is to start a rumor around here.

I am learning, everyday.

Sure, me too. My weekend reading includes the "LM-5 Structures Manual," an inch-thick set of diagrams and tables that I've spent months looking for.

And thanks to your comments on Tom Baron and Apollo 1, I'm searching for the final report on the Apollo 1 fire which will be thousands of pages.

That is why I am posting less.

My reading list is long too, which is why large segments of Clavius aren't getting written. I get three or four comments a week from people who would like to see this or that question answered, or who have other material suggestions.

Apollo 14 ? The Mission Reports

I think you and I talked about this. The Apogee series is great, even if the CD-ROM is overly hyped.

Think for Yourself! ? Questioning Pressure to Conform

Stuff like this is interesting to me. They teach you epistemology in college, but you never really get to think about it in terms of casual decision making. I've always maintained that the default motivations for human decisions are fear, conformity, and tradition. Logic and deductive reasoning are pretty far down the list.

I'd also recommend a textbook on logic. While it may not necessarily alter your beliefs, it will put your beliefs in perspective. Learning how to think logically doesn't always change the way you think, but it changes the way you feel about how you think.

Murder on Pad 34 (Erik Bergaust)

I've had a macabre interest in this book ever since I've heard about it. Those who have read it have mostly condemned it as irresponsible speculation, but I'd at least like to have a better idea what the author is on about. I'm more interested in the final report because it has all the testimony in it unedited. I can read what all the witnesses say and make up my own mind.

The Rivals (Adam Bruno)

What's this about?

My brain is pounding under the weight of controversy.

There's plenty of controversy in Apollo. Good grief, even among those who don't doubt at all that the landings were authentic, there is considerable disagreement over lots of aspects of the program. I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility of controversy and less-than-honorable goings-on. I just don't agree that this would be a reason to doubt the authenticity of the landings.

I'm not [looking for an excuse to dismiss you].

One could logically conclude you were if he took seriously your implication that I was a CIA operative. I've deliberately tried to write my site so that anyone can verify the information it contains. The only parts where that's impossible is where I provide insight into the aerospace industry. I'm not saying you have to believe everything I say just because I say it. But it seems everyone wants to write me off as a professional debunker or paid NASA apologist. I'd hate for you to do that.

Kizarvexis
2002-Jan-20, 03:26 AM
BA and Jay,
I'm sure you have discussed this issue before, but here is an angle I haven't seen on either of your sites yet. (or I just missed it /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif )

*If* the Apollo flags are waving in the wind as the Hoax believers suggest, then this website, http://www.stormfax.com/beaufort.htm, seems to indicate that the wind would be about level 4 on the Beaufort scale by the little flag pictures. If so, then this site, http://sln.fi.edu/tfi/units/energy/table1.html, describes the same Beaufort level raising dust. So if the wind is blowing hard enough to put the flag relatively straight out from the pole, where's the blowing dust?

Kizarvexis
(I know. I know. NASA re-touched the dust out, right? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif )

JayUtah
2002-Jan-20, 01:23 PM
Not all hoax believers are unaware or deny that the flag was held out by a telescopic aluminum rod through a hem in the top edge. Clearly those who argue that the flag was attached to the pole in the customary way, and that the appearance of the flag is due to wind alone, have a great deal of explaining to do.

The most common hoax argument concerning the flag is the apparent resistance of the flag to motion when its pole is adjusted by the astronaut. The typical proof clip shows the astronaut twisting the flag pole causing the free corner of the flag to whip back and forth. This, they argue, proves there is air. Otherwise the free corner of the flag would simply follow the rest of it without deflection or deformation. Apparently hoax believers have never heard of inertia.

Another argument claims the wrinkles visible in still photos are wind ripples stopped by the camera shutter. In fact they are simply "fabric memory" wrinkles in the nylon. Anyone can purchase the 3x5 Annin nylon U.S. flag, as did NASA, and verify that if you package it tightly folded, it will retain the creases for a long time. The charge is easily rebutted by noting that the wrinkles are identical in different frames. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal has just published Roll 37, which is little more than dozens of photos of the flag deployed by Apollo 11.

Karl
2002-Jan-21, 02:58 AM
General comment on the Clavius site. On several computers I've had difficulty reading some of the colored text because monitor contrast wasn't sufficient. Viewers with older monitors would appreciate a change in the font color.

Thanks for the effort.

odysseus0101
2002-Jan-21, 07:09 AM
Another argument claims the wrinkles visible in still photos are wind ripples stopped by the camera shutter. In fact they are simply "fabric memory" wrinkles in the nylon. Anyone can purchase the 3x5 Annin nylon U.S. flag, as did NASA, and verify that if you package it tightly folded, it will retain the creases for a long time. The charge is easily rebutted by noting that the wrinkles are identical in different frames. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal has just published Roll 37, which is little more than dozens of photos of the flag deployed by Apollo 11.


I'd like to add something that I haven't seen mentioned yet. Several of the wrinkles in the flag clearly have sharp edges and odd angles to them. These are not creases that could ever be caused by wind.

JayUtah
2002-Jan-21, 08:23 PM
On several computers I've had difficulty reading some of the colored text because monitor contrast wasn't sufficient.

Now that I'm doing work on other computers I've started to notice this too. The green text is especially dim. The colored text is supposed to match the color of the graphic at the top of the page, but clearly it will have to be brighter for legibility.

JayUtah
2002-Jan-21, 08:27 PM
Several of the wrinkles in the flag clearly have sharp edges and odd angles to them. These are not creases that could ever be caused by wind.

No, and in fact they are caused by the peculiar way the flag was folded in order to fit into its carrier. The erector rod was threaded through the hem added to the top edge. The bottom corners were folded up to the hem to create two 45-degree angles at the bottom, and the whole affair was rolled very tightly around the erector rod. When unfolded the 45-degree folds did not "hang" out but instead retained that crease.

It took several days for the packing wrinkles in my Annin flag to "hang" out, even in earth gravity.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-01-21 23:14 ]</font>

johnwitts
2002-Jan-21, 09:27 PM
The green text is especially dim.

There's green text? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

odysseus0101
2002-Jan-22, 02:04 AM
This makes perfect sense, and is one of the clearest, most easily understood explanations made by anti-hoax people such as yourself. The big question is, then, how people could ignore such an easily observable and testable argument? I can understand how some hoax believers might accidentally examine glove covers rather than gloves, or get different types of radiation confused. But anyone who has ever seen any sort of flag wave should be able to recognize immediately that the creases in the Apollo flag are the result of packaging. This becomes an epistemological argument -- Kuhn is perhaps the most immediate reference, but before I get too far afield I'll leave it at that.




On 2002-01-21 15:27, JayUtah wrote:
[b]Several of the wrinkles in the flag clearly have sharp edges and odd angles to them. These are not creases that could ever be caused by wind.[/b

No, and in fact they are caused by the peculiar way the flag was folded in order to fit into its carrier. The erector rod was threaded through the hem added to the top edge. The bottom corners were folded up to the hem to create two 45-degree angles at the bottom, and the whole affair was rolled very tightly around the erector rod. When unfolded the 45-degree folds did not "hang" out but instead retained that crease.

It took several days for the packing wrinkles in my Annin flag to "hang" out, even in earth gravity.

JayUtah
2002-Jan-22, 04:13 AM
I can understand how some hoax believers might accidentally examine glove covers rather than gloves, or get different types of radiation confused. ... This becomes an epistemological argument

As long as we're waxing philosophic, the most satisfying epiphany is when you realize that the conspiracy theory hypothesis has almost nothing to do with the evidence they put in front of it. The core belief is not held on the basis of any evidence, but on the desire to believe that the government has deceived them, and continues to do so. It's all a tapestry that includes Kennedy, UFOs, chemtrails, and Area 51. That's why showing them the blatant flaws in their logic or the empirical flaws in their evidence has absolutely no effect on their beliefs. These are not people who have deduced the moon landings were fraudulent. These are people who have decided a priori that they were falsified and are just looking for a way to make it intellectually palatable in retrospect.

Donnie B.
2002-Jan-22, 12:58 PM
On 2002-01-21 23:13, JayUtah wrote:
These are not people who have deduced the moon landings were fraudulent. These are people who have decided a priori that they were falsified and are just looking for a way to make it intellectually palatable in retrospect.


Exactly. Resistance is futile.

However, your site (and the BA's and others like it) are valuable as "vaccines" against crackpot ideas. As others have pointed out, they can help some potential believers see the error of their ways.

Nice job with the site. I'm one of the ones who has had trouble reading it, though.

Just in general, white-on-black is notoriously hard to read. You might want to consider a different background color, and dark-on-light text. Perhaps you can find another method of linking the text to the appropriate illustration.

If you could use any help with further development on the site, I volunteer. I have very basic skills in web development, and I'm a decent writer.

Kaptain K
2002-Jan-22, 04:02 PM
I have found that when reading a website with difficult to read color combinations, that dragging the cursor across the text reverses the color scheme, making it easier to read.

Donnie B.
2002-Jan-22, 04:16 PM
Exactly what I did on the Clavius site. But really, one shouldn't be forced to do that...

JayUtah
2002-Jan-22, 04:44 PM
However, your site (and the BA's and others like it) are valuable as "vaccines" against crackpot ideas.

"Consumer advocates in the marketplace of ideas," as one author put it.

There is enough which is counterintuitive about engineering in general, and space engineering in particular, to give crackpot ideas a foothold. (Engineering has been described as the antidote to intuition.)

For example, even my mother (who holds a Master's degree, albeit in English) wondered why there was no crater under the lunar module. I just said, "Mom, the lander was using 2,700 pounds of thrust; a Harrier uses 27,000 pounds of thrust and doesn't make a crater." She was satisfied because she realized her belief was based on the incorrect maxim that rocket engines are universally more powerful than jet engines.

Lots of people have similarly wrong but intuitive things in their heads. It's okay that they do. That's why our society has professional specializations. I'm sure what I intuitively believe regarding, say, medicine or finance is just as wrong as what others may intuitively believe about astronomy or space travel. And so without the benefit of careful study I might be susceptible to scam artists in those fields.

Just in general, white-on-black is notoriously hard to read.

Yes, and I knew this when I laid the site out. I was quite sure I wanted the front page to look as it does, although I knew it meant light text on a black background. (Technically, the foreground text color is light gray, not white.) I thought I would be somehow immune from the well-known effects of "reverse" contrast. Apparently I am not.

My graphical layout experience derives from the good old days where "layout" meant specifying dark smudges on white paper. We did cover light-on-dark, but it was basically just to enlarge and thicken the typeface and kern it more widely -- things not possible to do with web browsers.

You might want to consider a different background color, and dark-on-light text.

A graphical makeover has been in the back of my mind for some time. Now that people are coming out of the woodwork to complain about just how unreadable it is, I'll obviously have to escalate that a bit.

The main problem is that most of the in-body graphics might have to be redone from scratch. And I'm so far behind on supplying diagrams for the existing text that I'm reluctant to start all over. But clearly a dark-on-light approach is becoming more important.

Perhaps you can find another method of linking the text to the appropriate illustration.

Figure numbers would help, I suppose. I'm legally required to give attributions for a few of the illustrations, so I already need captions. I'm not wild about the idea of supplying lengthy captions for each illustration, but in a few cases it might solve text problems.

The main problem, as you've noticed, is that there are huge blocks of text without the benefit of graphics or illustrations. My main fear is not that people have to fiddle with their contrast knobs but that they'll fall asleep.

If you could use any help with further development on the site, I volunteer. I have very basic skills in web development, and I'm a decent writer.

You're hired. Send me email at claviusmoon@angelfire.com and we'll discuss your ideas.

CJSF
2002-Jan-22, 05:00 PM
I might be looney, but I daresay the light on dark is very easy for me to read. In fact, I think it is easier on my eyes than dark on light.

The pale "colored" heading sentences need to be brighter, though.

CJSF



_________________
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out."
--Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2002-01-22 12:06 ]</font>

johnwitts
2002-Jan-22, 09:51 PM
I'm sure what I intuitively believe regarding, say, medicine or finance is just as wrong as what others may intuitively believe about astronomy or space travel. And so without the benefit of careful study I might be susceptible to scam artists in those fields.

Jay, just send me $50,000 dollars in used notes and I'll supply you with a dietry supplement which will make you (more?) irresistable to women. Honest. Oh, and you'll live to 100. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

PS I don't have any problems reading Clavius. I do have a problem reading the white on very light grey text associated with the buttons at the bottom of these posts!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-01-22 16:53 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jan-22, 11:59 PM
I'll experiment with different layouts that mean I don't have to redraw all the graphics. I appreciate those of you trying to save me effort by saying you can read the site just fine. But the fact is that those who say I should have known better than to use a black background a light text are absolutely correct.

Far more difficult than the white button labels over the light gray background on these forum pages are the white button labels on the white background, such as on this post.

Zandermann
2002-Jan-23, 02:31 AM
JayUtah: Let me add my kudos to those above with regard to your site. I'm still mining it for information, trying to find all your nooks and crannies.

I've not had the same troubles that others are reporting regarding contrast and color schemes, but one thing I've noticed that I don't think anyone else has mentioned: the <-Prev and Next-> menu buttons lead to dead ends on quite a few pages.

Assume that's part of the next upgrade (Clavius 2.0 ?).....otherwise, it's a phenomenal site...wonderful work! And thanks!!

JayUtah
2002-Jan-23, 03:41 PM
I'm still mining it for information, trying to find all your nooks and crannies.

Please, we haven't been properly introduced.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

the <-Prev and Next-> menu buttons lead to dead ends on quite a few pages.

Probably all of the pages. I haven't hooked those up yet. I never believed that anyone would actually read the site that way, but all the web design books tell you it's a good idea to have those buttons. Since it took eight months for someone to finally notice they were broken, that's a good indication that nobody else reads the site that way either and so the buttons are probably going away.

CJSF
2002-Jan-23, 06:12 PM
... that's a good indication that nobody else reads the site that way either and so the buttons are probably going away.


Not necessarily... I noticed the very first visit, but figured you'd get to it and just worked my way through the site. I think they are a GREAT idea, just didn't tell you they were broken because I figured you knew already.

CJSF

ToSeek
2002-Jan-23, 06:52 PM
On 2002-01-23 13:12, Christopher Ferro wrote:

Not necessarily... I noticed the very first visit, but figured you'd get to it and just worked my way through the site. I think they are a GREAT idea, just didn't tell you they were broken because I figured you knew already.



Same here.

johnwitts
2002-Jan-23, 08:47 PM
And me!

Ian R
2002-Jan-23, 09:18 PM
Me too!

JayUtah
2002-Jan-23, 09:26 PM
Okay, okay. I'll leave the arrows.

Zandermann
2002-Jan-24, 12:58 AM
LOL!!!

And here I was, about to reply and apologize for attempting to navigate the site in a manner that no one else would have attempted!

Anyway, Jay, wonderful site

Donnie B.
2002-Jan-24, 10:31 PM
On 2002-01-22 11:44, JayUtah wrote:
If you could use any help with further development on the site, I volunteer. I have very basic skills in web development, and I'm a decent writer.

You're hired. Send me email at claviusmoon@angelfire.com and we'll discuss your ideas.


Hi, Jay,

Did my email get to you?

JayUtah
2002-Jan-24, 10:51 PM
Did my email get to you?

Yes, thanks. I'll be right with you.

Squirm
2002-Jan-24, 11:33 PM
I'm not so sure the problem is specifically white on black, rather that people surf the Internet with their monitor contrast slightly tuned down in order to preserve their vision. Then they are forced to reverse the contrast and make it easy on their eye balls.

MY EYES, THEY BURN!

ljbrs
2002-Jan-25, 12:29 AM
JayUtah:


I encourage the author to step up and accept accolades.

(blush) Thanks, B.A., that's my site. I have to legitimately thank B.A. for the inspiration to do it. Badastronomy.com was the first web resource I consulted, having been led there by a CNN article.

I'd like to thank John Witts, the Bad Astronomer, and many others who either post or read here, for their contributions, suggestions, and criticisms which have helped make the site what it is. I only regret I can't spend more time filling in the obvious holes and smoothing the rough edges.


Thanks for the site. It is fun to read and really helps put the silly conspiracy fools to an early rest.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

JayUtah
2002-Jan-25, 02:53 AM
Then they are forced to reverse the contrast and make it easy on their eye balls.

If people have to highlight the text with the mouse in order to read it, or adjust the monitor to avoid ocular combustion, then there's something wrong with the site. As I said, I thought I was exempt from the "white on black" rule. Silly me. It's not as bad as some sites I've seen -- light yellow over a textured cream background -- but I'd like to think I can do better.

It reminds me of when the Macintosh first came out. (Wow! Fonts!) You could always tell when an engineer had done his report on a Mac. The title page used every available font, in boldface italic drop-shadow outlines.

So what does everyone think about the HAL-style buttons?

odysseus0101
2002-Jan-25, 04:34 AM
So what does everyone think about the HAL-style buttons?


I like the design of the site, although I did notice that the Prev/Next buttons don't work. The style of the site is great -- subdued and professional, letting the text speak for itself without overpowering it with flashiness. The one word that probably describes it best is: classy.

AstroMike
2002-Jan-25, 04:44 AM
odysseus0101: The one word that probably describes it best is: classy.

Right. Very professional. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-01-24 23:44 ]</font>

CJSF
2002-Jan-25, 01:17 PM
So what does everyone think about the HAL-style buttons?


VERY nice. I like that look. I just "worry" that going to a dark text on light background will take away from the "HAL" look.

CJSF

David Hall
2002-Jan-25, 02:46 PM
I thoroughly enjoyed the site, and read through it all in one night. I sure wished the bottom links were working though. It's nice to be able to go through the ideas in an orderly sequence. I say you should make it a top priority. I like the dark background look. No problem for me. The text could be a bit brighter though.

BTW, there doesn't seem to be any link to the PiperVision page on any of the main pages. I remembered you posted it before, so I kept an eye out for it as I was reading, but the only link I've seen for it was here. Maybe you could include a full site-map?

J-Man
2002-Jan-25, 07:46 PM
Kaptain K said:
" I have found that when reading a website with difficult to read color combinations, that dragging the cursor across the text reverses the color scheme, making it easier to read.
"

I agree. A most useful feature. It also allows viewing "hidden" text that is the same color as the background. I've only seen hidden text on a few websites, usually when there is not much else on the page. I don't have much of a problem with white/grey text on black background, but I concede dark text on light background would be better. On my own site, the only comments I recieved about the site was the color scheme... aparently many people believe the color is more important than the information. I disagree on that one.

Also, my complements to the chef (Jay)... a very digestable web site. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
How do you spell relief? c.l.a.v.i.u.s.

ktesibios
2002-Feb-27, 06:49 AM
To JayUtah:

I read the Computer Technology section of your site recently.

Please, sir, may I have some more?

I'm quite serious here. Around the time that Alan Shepard was hitting his famous iron shot I was building widgets for my electric guitar with 2N1305s harvested from surplus PC boards bought in junk stores and getting the hang of making RTL flip-flops into a simple binary counter.

Nowadays I work in a field where 50 year old circuitry is in daily use right next to bleeding-edge DSP technology.

Getting to read more about the electronics of the Apollo-era space program would make me a happy geek.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-27, 03:18 PM
Check the bibliography section of Clavius:

http://www.clavius.org/bibbooks.html

There's a remarkable, though hard-to-find book by Eldon Hall, who wrote a lot of the technical documentation for the AGC during development. It's called Journey to the Moon: The History of the Apollo Guidance Computer.

MIT is also coming online with a library of original documents in PDF format relating to the design and development of the AGC.

Altogether it's well over a thousand pages of material, which should be enough "gruel" to keep you up late reading for weeks.

SpacedOut
2002-Feb-27, 03:58 PM
Jay – I’ll throw in my two cents worth – I love the site – Actually I found it before this site (sorry BA) – I was so annoyed (more liked P…..off) at the fox special I started to do some research on my own when I found Moon Base Clavius. As for the color scheme I find the light text on dark background very easy to read, actually prefer it to dark text on light background – maybe because I mostly work in cadd with a black or dark background (throwback to DOS days).

I agree with ktesibios– my first foray into building electronic stuff was with TTL IC’s with wire wrap – I’ll have to visit my public Library to see if I can find some of the technical books on the Apollo and LM.

ktesibios
2002-Feb-28, 04:33 AM
It turns out that Hall's book on the Apollo guidance computer is available from barnesandnoble.com- in stock.

YAY! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

At 55 bucks per

OY! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif

I already have a bookstore habit that would qualify for the Betty Ford Center, and hanging around on the Web isn't shrinking it any.

Oh well- food & shelter, then books and tools has always seemed like a sensible set of spending priorities. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Thanks, JayUtah! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

JayUtah
2002-Mar-01, 04:00 PM
After consulting some world-class graphic artists and after experimenting with different color schemes, I've decided the basic layout of Clavius will remain the same -- light text on a black background. However, I will increase the brightness of some of the colored text to make it more readable on poor-contrast monitors. I will also consider CSS features to make the body text just a bit more readable.

Thanks to all those who offered opinions, and please keep offering them.

Conrad
2002-Mar-27, 11:48 AM
I have to say that the Clavius site is jolly excellent indeed, very detailed and focussed. It covers all bases and then some, without getting personal or insulting - JU must have been taking calm pills to cope with the HB's!
However! - there's no e-mail address for people to send admiring mails to Jay Utah. I would have done, but instead I've had to come all the way here (not that coming here is such a chore).

Now excuse me, I have to e-mail a couple of people who saw a HB program on TV with the site details.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-27, 02:34 PM
there's no e-mail address for people to send admiring mails to Jay Utah.

Actually it's there, but it should probably be easier to find:

claviusmoon@angelfire.com