PDA

View Full Version : What Would it Take to Change Your Mind about Apollo?



Svector
2007-Mar-07, 11:11 PM
I've often asked conspiracists what it would take for them to fully accept the reality of the Apollo moon landings. What bit, or string of evidence would they require before they'd be able to admit it was all authentic, and faithful to NASA's version of events.

Very seldom have I received a straight answer. The responses typically veer off into diatribes about evil past or present administrations, charges of murder and brainwashing, or lengthy dissertations on why 2500 lbs. of thrust should produce a crater in hardpan.

I'd be interested to hear actual straightforward answers to that question, from anyone who doubts the validity of Apollo. What WOULD it take for you to believe? Where's your threshold of proof? IS there a threshold? Are you so firmly entrenched that nothing will ever change your mind?

Conversely, what would it take for an Apollo believer to change course, and admit that the landings were all faked? Is there a single piece of evidence that would completely nullify what you've known to be an established truth? Would a deathbed confession do the trick, or would it take a tidal wave of new revelations?

I realize the ratio of believers to non-believers on this board is uneven, but I would hope that doesn't dissuade those in the latter camp from participating. I'm honestly interested in hearing both sides.


.

WaxRubiks
2007-Mar-07, 11:22 PM
change mind? which way, or do you mean either way?

PetersCreek
2007-Mar-07, 11:25 PM
Conversely, what would it take for an Apollo believer to change course, and admit that the landings were all faked?

At first, I was going to say that definitive proof that the Moon doesn't exist at all would do it...but that doesn't necessarily prove fakery. Maybe we just thought we went. :whistle:

A much harder question to answer than it first appeared to be. A single disclosure in the face of all that evidence? I just can't wrap my head around one at the moment.

SpitfireIX
2007-Mar-07, 11:31 PM
This was discussed a couple of years ago in this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=13314).

Svector
2007-Mar-08, 12:10 AM
change mind? which way, or do you mean either way?

In essence: What would you need to believe the opposite of what you currently believe?

Svector
2007-Mar-08, 12:12 AM
At first, I was going to say that definitive proof that the Moon doesn't exist at all would do it...but that doesn't necessarily prove fakery. Maybe we just thought we went. :whistle:

Believe it or not, there is a small group of people who *don't* think the moon exists. They theorize it's possibly an illuminated high altitude balloon, or some type of 3D holographic projection. :p

JayUtah
2007-Mar-08, 12:47 AM
...or some type of 3D holographic projection. :p

Yeah, that 80,000,000-watt light bulb is a [expletive] to change.

For me, in short: a whole lot.

I say that not because I'm idealogically committed to NASA's success at landing on the moon, but because I have put many years of study into the Apollo historical record, including into parts some would consider the dregs of geekitude. For heaven's sake, we can look at the source code to the guidance computers and write emulators for it to verify that it does what it says it can do. We can duplicate all the orbital mechanics computations. We can reconstruct the mechanical design of the spacecraft almost down to the nuts and bolts.

It all checks out. That's the thing. With every detail you provide to a cover story comes the possibility that someone can verify that detail does not correspond to reality. So proven hoaxes are typically short on detail initially, and are discovered when the push for additional detail forces the hoaxster into saying something falsifiable. Apollo provides gargantuan amounts of verifiable detail -- all of which bears up under scrutiny.

If this is a hoax, this is a masterfully designed and executed hoax, right down to the alleged bits in the alleged computer.

Bart Sibrel likes to laugh at me when I said that even if Neil Armstrong himself admitted it was a hoax, I still wouldn't believe it. Armstrong's testimony does not by itself establish Apollo as credible, so by itself cannot impeach it as incredible. If Armstrong said it was all a lie, we'd still have to know how so much was faked. Without it the best explanation would still be that Armstrong is lying about it being a hoax.

So I would need a reasonably consistent and coherent combination of eyewitness and circumstantial evidence for a hoax. The circumstantial evidence objectively exists, but can usually be variously interpreted. The eyewitness provides the interpretation. The eyewitness would have to be someone recognizably attached to Apollo -- not Joe Blow who claims to be some low-level technician for a sub-sub-contractor in 1962. I'm thinking about people with the stature of John Aaron, Gene Kranz, Maxime Faget (albeit from beyond the grave). And they would have to provide verifiable evidence of how all that fakery was done, not just spin me a tale.

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-08, 12:48 AM
Somebody pointed out in another Apollo thread before that in order to prove the landings were fakes you would need to prove that every single piece of evidence and every single picture was faked, because if even 1 picture was real, then we were there.

Rue
2007-Mar-08, 03:19 AM
[b].
Bart Sibrel likes to laugh at me when I said that even if Neil Armstrong himself admitted it was a hoax, I still wouldn't believe it. Armstrong's testimony does not by itself establish Apollo as credible, so by itself cannot impeach it as incredible.


But all Apollo aficionados believe in the paranormal as a result of Ed Mitchell. ;)

For me it would have to be seeing the double shadows created by all those studio lights.

Gillianren
2007-Mar-08, 03:42 AM
Knowing how they faked it.

Svector
2007-Mar-08, 03:49 AM
But all Apollo aficionados believe in the paranormal as a result of Ed Mitchell. ;)

For me it would have to be seeing the double shadows created by all those studio lights.

I don't think double shadows would do it for me. If the circumstances were perfect, I could imagine sunlight striking a reflective piece of metal on a piece of hardware and forming a secondary light source that might be bright enough to cause a shadow.

If that was sufficiently disproven, there would still be the question of some type of double-exposure malfunction, or other film anomaly.

Of course I'm sort of putting the cart before the horse, because before even exploring the possible technical gaffes, the very existence of a photo showing double shadows would have to be properly explained.

How could such a photo exist when every single Apollo photo has been analyzed to the nth degree by thousands of eyeballs over 35+ years. If there WERE any true double shadows, they would've been noticed and singled out by now. It therefore would have to be some previously uncirculated photo(s), which would necessitate a whole new level of inquiries and investigations into their authenticity.

Now, if Aldrin was standing there saluting the flag with four soccer-stadium style shadows poking out in each direction, and it had NASA's stamp of authenticity on it, I might begin rethinking my position a bit. :-)

Swift
2007-Mar-08, 03:56 AM
It is extremely hard for me to imagine circumstances where I would come to think the landings were fake, the amount of evidence is just beyond overwhelming. If Neil Armstrong had a press conference with that announcement I would conclude it is time for Neil to see a doctor and get some strong medication.

novaderrik
2007-Mar-08, 04:32 AM
if only someone would just make a webpage with NASA photos that have slightly weird variations from what one would expect from a photo shot on the moon- along with a book that supports that position- then i'd believe it was fake..
or, maybe if one of the astronauts would punch some guy in the face for trying to make him swear on a bible that he was really there.. i guess that would be proof, too..

PetersCreek
2007-Mar-08, 06:49 AM
I got it I gotIgotitIgotit! The thing that would really convince me...

...waking up as the star of The Truman Show.

Svector
2007-Mar-08, 07:15 AM
I got it I gotIgotitIgotit! The thing that would really convince me...

...waking up as the star of The Truman Show.

If you woke up as the star of the Truman Show, the moon landings would be the least of your worries.

:)

NEOWatcher
2007-Mar-08, 02:09 PM
I was thinking that I would only know it if I saw it but:

Knowing how they faked it.
That would probably be a good start for me. Of course, we would have to know how all of it was faked, not just a bunch of pieces put together.

That, in itself, is a huge task. I haven't even seen enough HB knowledge to even justify starting the research.

torque of the town
2007-Mar-08, 02:47 PM
A left hook from Buzz perhaps........

dwrunyon
2007-Mar-08, 03:18 PM
Well, your showing the extended footage of the "transparency" window, and that of the flag really helped me... and that's despite the fact that the flag issue was never one of the biggest sticking points with me to begin with.

Since watching Lunar Legacy I now have a much deeper experience when I go into the yard and look at the moon... I can now really feel the reality of men strapped into seats heading that way... I can see and feel them as the approach, orbit and land... I can see through their eyes and feel through their skins and guts!

NEOWatcher
2007-Mar-08, 03:22 PM
A left hook from Buzz perhaps........
Oh yeah, that makes me think of another thing that might make me believe in the hoax.....Alzheimer's.

Donnie B.
2007-Mar-08, 04:08 PM
Knowing how they faked it.I concur... but we'd have to know this in the same full and exacting detail as we know how the missions actually took place.

And also, we'd need to know why they did it -- the HB crowd seem to have a whole slew of reasons that don't necessarily match up. For example, we hear that we did it to fool and intimidate the Soviets, but when it's pointed out that the Soviets would have easily detected a fake Apollo program, we hear that we bribed them with wheat. That sort of negates the possibility of fooling and intimidating them, one would think.

So just who were the intended dupes in a faked Apollo program?

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-08, 04:51 PM
What I find interesting about this is that, when asked this question, we actually have an answer. If you were to ask a True Believer they would say that nothing will change their mind. That's the difference between science and belief.

torque of the town
2007-Mar-08, 04:59 PM
What I find interesting about this is that, when asked this question, we actually have an answer. If you were to ask a True Believer they would say that nothing will change their mind. That's the difference between science and belief.




That I believe, says it all!!

sts60
2007-Mar-08, 05:02 PM
Anything that comes to mind - like finding out that the radiation environment is staggeringly different than NASA claimed, or that the lunar samples are all wrong - would entail enormous numbers of people, from countries all over the Earth, to come forward and 'fess up that all those satellites aren't really there, or that an entire branch of science is wrong, or whatnot.

As Jay said, one or two guys saying it didn't happen won't do it (any more than a WWII vet saying D-Day never happened):
So I would need a reasonably consistent and coherent combination of eyewitness and circumstantial evidence for a hoax. The circumstantial evidence objectively exists, but can usually be variously interpreted. The eyewitness provides the interpretation. The eyewitness would have to be someone recognizably attached to Apollo -- not Joe Blow who claims to be some low-level technician for a sub-sub-contractor in 1962. I'm thinking about people with the stature of John Aaron, Gene Kranz, Maxime Faget (albeit from beyond the grave)...
I used to work for Max... he never said it was a fake to me!

Dave J
2007-Mar-08, 05:17 PM
I dunno,
Somehow, all the world's scientists would have to uniformly state "Ha Ha! Snookered you!!...then all the current engineers and orbital satellite operators saying "Gad, what a bunch of suckers"...then the astronauts and designers saying "Gotcha!!!".
...that, and finding out that all the TV, communications and weather data I've been living by has all been secretely "ground based" all these decades.

Yeah, it would take just a little bit.

sts60
2007-Mar-08, 06:04 PM
... like a DirecTV installer, chortling as he drives away after installing yet another dish pointed at empty space.

(fixed number before gillianren whomps me upside the head)

JayUtah
2007-Mar-08, 06:20 PM
If you were to ask a True Believer they would say that nothing will change their mind.

Point taken and valid, but that's not what all true believers say. What some of them say, however, is just as amusing as the ones who express stubborn faith.

Bill Kaysing said once in an interview that if a probe would fly over the lunar surface and take pictures of the landing sites, he would recant. But that was before he learned of a Japanese mission that planned to do just that. In the next interview (his final, it turned out) Kaysing said nothing would shake his faith.

Not all true believers say they can't be shaken. Some instead try to carefully set the bar just high enough to be out of reach (and thus guarantee continued sales for the time being), but not so high that they come off sounding unreasonable. The punchline is when they don't set the bar high enough. They propose that if some specific bit of evidence were available, it would convince them -- but they didn't know that their specific evidence already existed. When it's immediately shoved under their noses, the backpedaling that follows would churn cream to butter.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-08, 06:39 PM
...that's despite the fact that the flag issue was never one of the biggest sticking points with me to begin with.

Everyone's different, I've found. People have different predispositions, and that leads them to look at different points of evidence in different ways. They have different standards of proof, too. That poses a problem for debunkers.

Among the conscientious fence-sitters are those who simply want to be reassured, and also those who want to learn everything they can. There are people who are convinced by a simple counter-example, and others who want to know the underlying theory.

I try to satisfy everyone. So some people are satisfied when I say, "I'm an engineer and I've studied the hoax claims and can say that they're bogus." Some people enjoy reading the pages and pages of analysis I provide. Some people just want to see a picture that duplicates Apollo lighting (not hard to come by) and others want to know exactly what's wrong with the way conspiracists pretend to analyze photos.

On the flag issue, most people simply don't know that there was a horizontal rod holding the flag outsretched in the vacuum. "Oh really? That makes sense then." The die-hards want you to come up with a fully-documented, physically valid model for every crease, fold, and shadow they seen the photos, and every wiggle they see in the film. If you can't do that, they say, then it must have been faked. Yeah, whatever.

I can see through their eyes and feel through their skins and guts!

Yes, I know the feeling.

I've been allowed the privilege of climbing into Apollo spacecraft and actually taking apart and reassembling Apollo-era hardware. I've also done the same with aerospace hardware over which there is little controversy. In my professional career as an engineer I know the feeling of eating, sleeping, and breathing an engineering project for years, and I know the sometimes ineffable characteristics of products of that kind of labor. But in my spare time I also work in a commercial live theater and in the local film industry, in which I have built theatrical sets and props. I know the characteristics of those products too.

It's just my opinion, but when I sit in an Apollo command module, I get the very strong feeling that it's the real thing. It's not just one of the props or sets that I've worked on. Apollo engineering is not just ordinary aerospace engineering from the 1960s, it's extraordinary aerospace engineering. It doesn't take much to put myself in the place of those pilots learning to operate that machine and relying on it to safeguard their lives.

Grand_Lunar
2007-Mar-08, 08:47 PM
Knowing how they faked it.

Ditto for me.

I'd also like to know why the Saturn 5, Apollo spacecraft, and LM wouldn't work.

Svector
2007-Mar-08, 10:48 PM
we hear that we did it to fool and intimidate the Soviets, but when it's pointed out that the Soviets would have easily detected a fake Apollo program, we hear that we bribed them with wheat. That sort of negates the possibility of fooling and intimidating them, one would think.

Very good point. They seem to be saying, "NASA staged the landings to fool the Soviets, and the Soviets helped them do it".

Huh:question: :question:

Svector
2007-Mar-08, 10:57 PM
I dunno,
Somehow, all the world's scientists would have to uniformly state "Ha Ha! Snookered you!!...then all the current engineers and orbital satellite operators saying "Gad, what a bunch of suckers"...then the astronauts and designers saying "Gotcha!!!".
...that, and finding out that all the TV, communications and weather data I've been living by has all been secretely "ground based" all these decades.

Yeah, it would take just a little bit.

But think of the method by which you'd receive such a report. The players involved wouldn't all come to your house, flash their credentials and tell you face to face. You'd most likely see some kind of report in the news media.

I'd suspect a fabricated story, ala Dan Rather/Mary Mapes/60 Minutes, before considering an Apollo hoax.


.

Svector
2007-Mar-08, 11:19 PM
The punchline is when they don't set the bar high enough. They propose that if some specific bit of evidence were available, it would convince them -- but they didn't know that their specific evidence already existed. When it's immediately shoved under their noses, the backpedaling that follows would churn cream to butter.

A reaction I've witnessed many times. One HB told me if only he could see a video of earth from the lunar surface, that would do the trick. When I provided him with a clip from A15 showing just that, the butter-churning began in earnest.

Another one (Jarrah W.) complained about the shadow convergences in the Apollo surface photos. Then he made a video in which his own demo showed the exact same effect. Afterwards he shifted his emphasis to lack of stars or something.

Yeah, the gymnastics are entertaining but sometimes they flip so fast it makes you dizzy.

dwrunyon
2007-Mar-09, 04:20 AM
On the flag issue, most people simply don't know that there was a horizontal rod holding the flag outsretched in the vacuum. "Oh really? That makes sense then."

Well, I always understood about the rod, I just meant that when I first started thinking about the possibility of the moon hoax (the first airing of the Fox show) I never thought of the "flag issue" as being among the most convincing evidence of fakery...

But when I saw Svector's footage of the flag remaining completey still with the astronauts walking right past it it then became some strong evidence against fakery.

Another bit of information that helped to "bring me back" was listening to Phil on one of the Joe Rogan debates (I found the old one too) give the info about the radiation belt and how it was possible to fly just right and wind up only passing through a bit of it using its "donut hole".

Svector
2007-Mar-09, 07:56 AM
Well, I always understood about the rod, I just meant that when I first started thinking about the possibility of the moon hoax (the first airing of the Fox show) I never thought of the "flag issue" as being among the most convincing evidence of fakery...

But when I saw Svector's footage of the flag remaining completey still with the astronauts walking right past it it then became some strong evidence against fakery.

I was actually kind of awestruck when I watched that sequence for the first time, after I'd increased the playback speed to 36x. I didn't expect to see any movement, but it still sort of shocked me how eerily still the flag actually remained!

The little nugget of serendipity however, was the ever so slight shadow movement across the ground. No one will EVER convince me that the hoax was so *complete* -- so thoroughly planned down to the tiniest bit of minutiae, that some stage hand knew, in 1960-whatever, that he would need to simulate precise lunar rotation by inching a studio light higher by x number of millimeters every hour to create shadow movement, JUST IN CASE somebody in the future invented the technology to play the film back at 2000x.

They obviously couldn't use an outdoor set to produce that shadow movement because of Earth's faster rotation, so it would've needed to be this convoluted, infinitely complex, improbable scenario.

Given what I've just described, I would have to say that I would begin to have a few doubts about Apollo, if an authenticated, official NASA film or video taken on the lunar surface, showed zero shadow movement over a sufficient length of time. If I saw some continuous footage of an EVA that spanned a couple hours and showed no visible shadow movement during a 2000x playback, I'd be highly suspicious and would be very interested in discovering the explanation. Especially given that the missions were done in the Lunar morning, with the sun relatively low on the horizon.


.

Neverfly
2007-Mar-09, 12:55 PM
I was actually kind of awestruck when I watched that sequence for the first time, after I'd increased the playback speed to 36x. I didn't expect to see any movement, but it still sort of shocked me how eerily still the flag actually remained!

The little nugget of serendipity however, was the ever so slight shadow movement across the ground. No one will EVER convince me that the hoax was so *complete* -- so thoroughly planned down to the tiniest bit of minutiae, that some stage hand knew, in 1960-whatever, that he would need to simulate precise lunar rotation by inching a studio light higher by x number of millimeters every hour to create shadow movement, JUST IN CASE somebody in the future invented the technology to play the film back at 2000x.

They obviously couldn't use an outdoor set to produce that shadow movement because of Earth's faster rotation, so it would've needed to be this convoluted, infinitely complex, improbable scenario.

Given what I've just described, I would have to say that I would begin to have a few doubts about Apollo, if an authenticated, official NASA film or video taken on the lunar surface, showed zero shadow movement over a sufficient length of time. If I saw some continuous footage of an EVA that spanned a couple hours and showed no visible shadow movement during a 2000x playback, I'd be highly suspicious and would be very interested in discovering the explanation. Especially given that the missions were done in the Lunar morning, with the sun relatively low on the horizon.


.

Fascinating.........I had never even THOUGHT of this argument before

BertL
2007-Mar-09, 01:24 PM
I think the CTs best explanation for the flag not moving in the footage used by svector is that that footage was shot seperately with the footage from the TV camera.

Jakenorrish
2007-Mar-09, 01:52 PM
The only thing that would convince me it was a fake would be to wake up and realise my entire life had been a dream up until now......

R.A.F.
2007-Mar-09, 02:17 PM
The only thing that would convince me it was a fake would be to wake up and realise my entire life had been a dream up until now......

I was going to say something similiar...that I woke up from a coma and found that things didn't work as I had "dreamed" they did.

For instance the physical "laws" of nature would have to be different.

Svector
2007-Mar-09, 05:16 PM
I think the CTs best explanation for the flag not moving in the footage used by svector is that that footage was shot seperately with the footage from the TV camera.

There's simultaneous DAC and video footage of the flag raising and subsequent EVA. All the astronaut movements and flag movements can be shown to match up precisely between the two. IMO, this lends more support to the claim that it was authentic. How does this give the CT's an "explanation"?

Svector
2007-Mar-09, 05:18 PM
The only thing that would convince me it was a fake would be to wake up and realise my entire life had been a dream up until now......

....until you picked up the morning newspaper in your new "reality" and the headline read: MAN LANDS ON THE MOON!

:D

Matherly
2007-Mar-09, 06:01 PM
Well, for me to change my mind about Apollo, it would take Lee growing much more of a backbone. He needs to either start treating Dee better and get some real command skill- I don't think that the pilots are really that inspired by him.

:shifty:

I just answered the wrong question, didn't I?

BertL
2007-Mar-09, 09:51 PM
There's simultaneous DAC and video footage of the flag raising and subsequent EVA. All the astronaut movements and flag movements can be shown to match up precisely between the two. IMO, this lends more support to the claim that it was authentic. How does this give the CT's an "explanation"?
Maybe the raising-the-flag footage and the rest of the footage with the flag hanging still, both from the non-TV camera were shot seperately? After all, the camera was only 1FPS (right?)... :D

MG1962A
2007-Mar-09, 10:15 PM
I am not sure I could ever wrap my mind around the idea. The evidence comes from just far too many directions. I would need it explained exactly how the USSR got fool. How the Australians at Honeysuckle and Parkes got fooled. I am sure other nations also played support roles in the missions, so they would need accounting for

Then I would need the 30,000 scientific papers written about the Moon samples debunked, then explained how they got through peer review etc etc

On a personal note I am not sure how I would react if this all turned out to be a fairly tale. As a kid I rode them rockets to the moon. Stayed glued for hours in front of the TV watching grey blobs move against slightly greyer blobs of background.

The Moon missions where a cornerstone in helping me become the person I am today. And every one of those men who went up there are my personal heros (Even the guys who didn't even get to walk on the thing) SO to suddenly find tha is all an illusion is a concept I am not sure I am ready to face

Svector
2007-Mar-09, 10:30 PM
Maybe the raising-the-flag footage and the rest of the footage with the flag hanging still, both from the non-TV camera were shot seperately? After all, the camera was only 1FPS (right?)... :D

Oh, I thought you were referring to the film footage as compared to the TV camera footage.

So your hypothesis is that they could have used a regular flag during the setup, then made an edit, and inserted a "rigid" flag?

How would they have gotten each crinkle and fold to line up precisely? And how would they have pulled this off seamlessly when the TV camera was capturing the same event?

There's no evidence of any jump cut whatsoever in the DAC footage, and no evidence of any monkey business in the TV coverage which has been shown to synchronize perfectly with the film, so I don't see how that's possible.

BTW, are you on YouTube? I seem to remember having this exact argument with an HB there about a month ago.

BertL
2007-Mar-10, 01:32 PM
So your hypothesis is that they could have used a regular flag during the setup, then made an edit, and inserted a "rigid" flag?

How would they have gotten each crinkle and fold to line up precisely? And how would they have pulled this off seamlessly when the TV camera was capturing the same event?
Yes, that's basically the hypothesis I presented. I don't know how and stuff, perhaps we need to find somebody who actually supports this hypothesis. :)

Sigma_Orionis
2007-Mar-10, 03:33 PM
Well, for me to change my mind about Apollo, it would take Lee growing much more of a backbone. He needs to either start treating Dee better and get some real command skill- I don't think that the pilots are really that inspired by him.

:shifty:

I just answered the wrong question, didn't I?

Heh, I don't think so, I don't think I will change my mind about THAT Apollo :D

JayUtah
2007-Mar-10, 05:20 PM
But when I saw Svector's footage of the flag remaining completey still with the astronauts walking right past it it then became some strong evidence against fakery.

I hear you. Many years ago someone found a clip from one of the J-mission in which the astronaut walks past the flag and it moves ever so slightly. It's one of those things you can only see with sophisticated video tools. At first I wasn't sure what was going on. Then I did a couple of experiments with my own flag (in air) and noticed that when I walked by it, the flag drifted away from me. In the Apollo video the flag was drawn toward the astronaut.

That made me even more interested. So I did a couple of rough distance computations using the PLSS and flag dimensions and found that the astronaut was likely just a few inches from the flag. I could rule out any fluid dynamics at that close range -- in air the flag would have been flapping a lot. Then it occurred to me that the astronauts indeed pick up a fairly strong electrostatic charge shuffling about on the surface. The flag was actually being drawn electrostatically to the astronaut as he walked past at close range. Two proofs of vacuum.

..how it was possible to fly just right and wind up only passing through a bit of it using its "donut hole".

Dr. Van Allen himself helped design those trajectories. Lots of people don't understand just how three-dimensional they were, or indeed how three-dimensional cislunar space is. And it's not their fault; they just haven't been given the tools to do it. Most drawings of the trajectories render everything in a single plane for clarity. But they were hand-crafted 3D orbits, and when you see how one goes from parking orbit around Earth to a translunar injection manuever headed for the moon, you can see the clever ways in which the most dangerous parts of the Van Allen belts were avoided.

dwrunyon
2007-Mar-10, 05:55 PM
The flag was actually being drawn electrostatically to the astronaut as he walked past at close range. Two proofs of vacuum.

Now that is pretty danged interesting!

Another thought that helped to bring me back to belief is the realization that if "they" were pulling off a hoax as elaborate as would be required, the risks of getting caught would be be far too great... they would have done it ONE time and let that be the end of it... their goals sufficiently satisfied.

Nicolas
2007-Mar-10, 07:46 PM
I'm seeing Buzz on Tuesday (yee-ha). If he would start crying and admit he'd been fooling the world about the moon landing all along, I would be left with a lot of questions on what did happen then and how they did it, but it certainly would be a major argument pro hoax that would let me more than seriously doubt the landings. Though occam's razor says that it would be more likely that I witnessed Buzz going mental than the landings being a hoax. The hoax would have to be perfect beyond any boundaries of realism (unless the hoax does include lunar landings, only not by buzz and neil as we were told of course, for example robots inside the suits. Strange how nobody ever proposed that HT). But still, it would certainly be a reason for me to feel some very strong doubts and the need to have many questions answered.

Other than that, I'm still waiting for the first technical argument (pro hoax aguments or disproving real landing arguments) that stands up to scientific scrutiny (or is in accordance with logic if not purely scientific) to arise before I'll be moved any distance towards the hoax theory. The hoax movement needs to realize that the landings have a huge pile of excellent evidence and that even BETTER evidence will need to be put against that.

For example, the HT I just mentioned: robots inside space suits, give or take plasticine heads. Nice theory. Any evidence for it? no. Explanation on how they could show people clearly being humans in space beyond the VAB at the same time, hence humans can pass the VAb and thereby remove a major reason for a hoax? No. Conclusion: nice idea, but doesn't stand up to the pro landing evidence.

satori
2007-Mar-10, 09:43 PM
you are seeing Buzz Aldrin?!

to pull this Moon Hoax stunt would count as a greater achievement in my book, than to bring a happy tourist familiy to Mount Olympus (olympus mons i mean)
----------------------------------------
hoakuspoakus

Laguna
2007-Mar-10, 09:49 PM
Nicolas, from what distance? ;)

Svector
2007-Mar-10, 10:31 PM
Yes, that's basically the hypothesis I presented. I don't know how and stuff, perhaps we need to find somebody who actually supports this hypothesis. :)

I seem to recall your friend Jarrah making this same exact argument.

Hmmmmmm :think:

Svector
2007-Mar-10, 10:38 PM
Then it occurred to me that the astronauts indeed pick up a fairly strong electrostatic charge shuffling about on the surface. The flag was actually being drawn electrostatically to the astronaut as he walked past at close range. Two proofs of vacuum.

The same reason the dust stuck to their suits and made them look like chimney sweeps.

What mission was that flag footage from? I have a clip from A16 where the flag is being unfurled and a whole corner of it suddenly flips up. It looks really odd - are you familiar with that one Jay?

It almost seems like there's a thread or something that gets hung up and finally snaps.

Svector
2007-Mar-10, 10:52 PM
For example, the HT I just mentioned: robots inside space suits, give or take plasticine heads. Nice theory.

Yeah, I don't think you'll find much evidence to support the existence of mobile bipedal robots in 1969 that could mimic human motion in a convincing way.

Jay and Satweavers have personal experience with the Disney Animatronic program, which has been at the very cutting edge in replicating human movement for many years. As far as I know though, there weren't any that could walk on their own. I know Abe Lincoln could stand up from his chair, which was pretty impressive for the day.

What year was Abe created Jay?

BertL
2007-Mar-11, 12:01 PM
I seem to recall your friend Jarrah making this same exact argument.

Hmmmmmm :think:
I wouldn't be surprised if he did. However we never got past discussing AS17-136-20744...

JayUtah
2007-Mar-11, 02:28 PM
Yeah, I don't think you'll find much evidence to support the existence of mobile bipedal robots in 1969 that could mimic human motion in a convincing way.

You won't find any in the 2007 either.

As far as I know though, there weren't any that could walk on their own.

Still aren't. Tom Morrow is bolted to the floor so that he doesn't have to worry about keeping his balance. There are indeed walking robots today, but they aren't very anthropomorphic.

The other part of Tom Morrow that people don't see is the phone-booth sized rack of electronics and fluid master cylinders behind the wall that provides power to his onboard actuators.

What year was Abe created Jay?

Our Abe replacement was built in around 1994.

Joe Durnavich
2007-Mar-11, 03:09 PM
From what I understand, getting that last few percent of making a model of a human fully realistic is exceptionally challenging. Animators in Hollywood discovered that that once computer graphics models of humans become too realistic looking and match the motion of humans too closely, there is something creepy about them because the motions aren't exactly right. They have to dial back the reality a bit so that the audience perceives it as a cartoon (or do motion capture).

The other part of Tom Morrow that people don't see is the phone-booth sized rack of electronics and fluid master cylinders behind the wall that provides power to his onboard actuators.

Engineers must be humbled by nature. After spending all day working on huge supercomputers, beaming with pride over of the exceptional powers of computation, to step outside and see a little bird fly down to the precise spot where a worm is, refuel itself, and then fly up back up and perch itself on a telephone wire...

satori
2007-Mar-11, 04:51 PM
Engineers must be humbled by nature. After spending all day working on huge supercomputers, beaming with pride over of the exceptional powers of computation, to step outside and see a little bird fly down to the precise spot where a worm is, refuel itself, and then fly up back up and perch itself on a telephone wire...

Good point, Joe Durnavich,
they must feel humbled, but many also must be humbled......you will often find a fetishist streak with the tech geeks (I am sure every body here on the board will know examples for that).

Nicolas
2007-Mar-11, 10:30 PM
Nicolas, from what distance? ;)

Depending on the crowd and my place therein, anything between 5 and 75 meters (and if things go really ugly, not at all...). He's giving a lecture, and I'll be there, hopefully somewhere remotely in front of the hall. I'll be there about an hour in advance, to make sure I can get in through the crowds. Wish me luck! The hall can hold about 800 people (estimate, I've been in that hall twice and it's hard to estimate with its strange layout), but it's free entrance and we've got about 800 aerospace students alone. Add to that thousands of other students and other people...it will be ugly :).

Especially when hearing the stories of the first lecture by shuttle astronaut Wubo Ockels (which I did not attend), that already caused scenes unseen since ET was in theatres...(referring to people sitting on the stairs and pathways and pretty much every non-vertical surface)

edit: the last mail says a different hour than the previous mail. I'll believe the last mail though, even though it doesn't state giving any correction on previous hours. The lecture will be about 45 minutes, and afterwards there's room for questions. Any suggestions? :) It's not a moon landing lecture though.

Svector
2007-Mar-11, 10:52 PM
There are indeed walking robots today, but they aren't very anthropomorphic.

I took my daughter to Disneyland in '05 and I talked her into watching the Asimo demonstration with me. She had no interest in him at all, and I fully admit seeing the show for purely selfish reasons. :lol:

Amazing little guy. Played soccer, climbed stairs backwards and performed a whole routine - but you're right. Not very anthropomorphic. (<- copied & pasted)

Nicolas
2007-Mar-11, 11:04 PM
I've seen my share of walking robots, and it would indeed be quite difficult to make them move like the astronauts for a multiplicity of tasks involving arms, legs and full body motion. However do take into account that (for example for arm motion) the robots we're referring to are automated, and that in the robot astronauts theory, somebody on earth could use a control suit thingy to steer them; they didn't have to be automated. That makes motion more natural. Delay makes steering quite impossible, I know. The technology wasn't particularly around, I know. Still no evidence whatsoever for this theory, I know. Just being a tiny little bit of devil's advocate :).

satori
2007-Mar-12, 04:42 PM
we've got about 800 aerospace students alone.

is the Netherlands intend on grabbing the Mars, Nicolas?

John Mendenhall
2007-Mar-12, 05:22 PM
The thing that is hard to believe about the Apollo program is that it was so successful. In the intervening years we have managed to kill at least 14 astronauts, plus whatever the Russians and Chinese did. I forget which crew got the first ride an a Saturn, but I remember the description, by the mission commander, of the capsule whipping around during launching is truly frightening, not the least because it was unexpected. The whole business was at the top of an enormous liquid fuel rocket. Von Braun and his team were fortunate to never lose one at launch. There have to be people out there who worked on the Saturns: sea stories, anyone?

R.A.F.
2007-Mar-12, 05:37 PM
The thing that is hard to believe about the Apollo program is that it was so successful. In the intervening years we have managed to kill at least 14 astronauts...

It's an unfair comparison. Compare the number of Astronauts who flew during the time of Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, to the number of Astronauts who have flown since the 1st Shuttle flight in 1981.

Or look at it this way....

Apollo 1 lost it's crew, and Apollo 13 was almost lost. That would have been 2 lost flights. The Shuttle program has lost 2 flights, with the number of Astronauts being 7 on each flight. Again, an unfair comparison.

Or simply look at the number of flights total...

I know the missions and the names of the Astronauts who flew on each Mercury/Gemini/Apollo flight, but with the Shuttle I lost track after about the 10th flight back in the 80's.

Moose
2007-Mar-12, 05:50 PM
There's so much evidence that validates Apollo that successfully casting doubt on any one piece of that evidence would have precisely zero effect on the overall theory: Apollo happened.

Even a deathbed confession wouldn't, on its own, be enough at this point. There's just too much independent evidence to counter.

It also helps that every piece of counter-"evidence" I've seen thus far has turned out to be some combination of ignorance (great or small) of the physical world, demonstrable falsehood, outright libel, and/or best left to the realm of psychiatry. Each argument almost self-impeaching.

Moose
2007-Mar-12, 06:01 PM
I forget which crew got the first ride an a Saturn, but I remember the description, by the mission commander, of the capsule whipping around during launching is truly frightening, not the least because it was unexpected.

Apollo 7.

Wally Shirra's voiced concern immediately prior to launch was the winds. They were just under the mission rule (that he'd insisted upon.) Shirra's concern was that the couches they were strapped into weren't designed to withstand a land-landing (the good couches weren't ready in time for Apollo 7), and would perform very badly in the wrong conditions.

The conditions were indeed wrong. The winds immediately prior to launch were in the wrong direction, and almost strong enough to pull the CM back to shore were they to have to abort early in the launch.

Wally couldn't see the weather data, but he could feel the wind rocking the CSM about. It wouldn't surprise me that the lack of an objective reference point made it feel like a small hurricane out there.

Well, he took the CAPCOM's word for it that the winds were adverse but still within the mission rule.

Moose
2007-Mar-12, 06:02 PM
It's an unfair comparison.

Echoed. Well put.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-12, 06:46 PM
The crew atop a Saturn V were some 200 feet away from the vehicle's center of mass. So when the vehicle steered to account for wind drift, that translated into substantial lateral movement in the CSM. Pitch and yaw corrections would have seemed like quite a lot of bobbing and weaving.

Nicolas
2007-Mar-12, 07:00 PM
is the Netherlands intend on grabbing the Mars, Nicolas?

What we intend on doing, is beyond your wildest imagination ;).

No, it's just a quite large aerospace faculty. I don't know how many aerospace students there are exaclty, but 800 seems more than realistic as there are about 300 newcomers every year.

satori
2007-Mar-12, 07:30 PM
The crew atop a Saturn V were some 200 feet away from the vehicle's center of mass. So when the vehicle steered to account for wind drift, that translated into substantial lateral movement in the CSM. Pitch and yaw corrections would have seemed like quite a lot of bobbing and weaving.

there might have been involved some resonant oscillations in the liquid propellant feedlines of the central engine (as in the doomed apollo 13 mission) also...............just your usual cover up here ....(not worth of special mention)

I don't think the lay outs of the main thrusters experienced much change up to apollo 13. They were simply riding the thing on an edge. The hero status has to be earned after all!

Nicolas
2007-Mar-12, 07:56 PM
There is quite a difference between a cover up and bing not worth of special mention. What did you mean?

JMV
2007-Mar-12, 08:03 PM
there might have been involved some resonant oscillations in the liquid propellant feedlines of the central engine (as in the doomed apollo 13 mission) also...............just your usual cover up here ....(not worth of special mention)

What are you on about?

The whipping around mentioned by John Mendenhall implies lateral movement. Pogo oscillations you're talking about were longitudinal. I might have misunderstood you, but if you're accusing someone here of cover ups, you're stepping over the boundaries of civil decorum. If you're not, I apologize.

satori
2007-Mar-12, 08:25 PM
Nicolas and JMV,

didn't I come across as knowledgable?

Well it was some ex tempore kind of ..........Hoax
(really I can't hear that word any more recently)






ah, yes.......when i have to, i will humbly apologize...... (i mean ernestly)

Nicolas
2007-Mar-12, 08:38 PM
I can't follow. At all.

JMV
2007-Mar-12, 08:39 PM
didn't I come across as knowledgable?
Might be a language thing...


ah, yes.......when i have to i will humbly apologize...... (i mean ernestly)
I didn't demand you to apologize. I meant, if I really did misunderstand you, I apologize for painting you as a villain.

And honestly, your reply didn't make your postion any clearer to me.

Hamlet
2007-Mar-12, 08:52 PM
there might have been involved some resonant oscillations in the liquid propellant feedlines of the central engine (as in the doomed apollo 13 mission) also...............just your usual cover up here ....(not worth of special mention)

What cover up? Are you suggesting that the pogo problem was not acknowledged by NASA?



I don't think the lay outs of the main thrusters experienced much change up to apollo 13.

Huh? Are you suggesting that NASA didn't address the pogo problem until after Apollo 13? If so, you are way off base.



They were simply riding the thing on an edge. The hero status has to be earned after all!

Are you suggesting that NASA allowed a known problem to go unaddressed in order to maintain some mythical hero status?

Would you please clarify what you are getting at?

satori
2007-Mar-12, 09:23 PM
ok, I see: I really have to apologize now!
it wasn't my intention, but i obviously caused more of a fuddle than intended!
I mean, i constructed this post from................scrap! Slight of Hand, Leger de Main, Devil Do, Imp Work,...............you name it!
As i said, I followed a whim (spring inspired?) and made up a superficialy convincing cover up from nothing but rarified air.
The impressing sounding (to me) passage about the "propellant feedlines" I simply pasted from a recent thread, in which Nicolas shone as especialy well informed and knowledgable! I was sure that he would have a deja vue and may be a laugh! So the whole thing was intended as something rather innocent.

but the question concerning the central engine is interresting anyway..........why didn't the oscillations show in the previous flights........might there really have been some sweeping under the carpet going on here?

JMV
2007-Mar-12, 09:45 PM
Oh? I took your wording to be something it wasn't. I am sorry. :o

You can read about the pogo problem here (http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/05.html):
Especially this passage is of interest:

The five-engine second stage of Saturn V also experienced pogo, but the oscillations were concentrated at the center engine, so they were not felt by the astronauts. But on Apollo XII, the vibration at the center engine reached 8 g's and caused concern for the vehicle's structural integrity. Analysis predicted that the 15-g structural limit would not be exceeded, so no fix for pogo was implemented for Apollo XIII. But, as with the N-11 Gemini flight, the unexpected happened: Vibration levels reached 34 g's, causing premature shutdown of the center engine.

Moose
2007-Mar-12, 09:45 PM
but the question concerning the central engine is interresting anyway..........why didn't the oscillations show in the previous flights........might there really have been some sweeping under the carpet going on here?

Pogo showed up in all rocket flights. It was managable at all times, but more serious in early Apollo flights. As Apollo progressed, they found new ways of reducing it.

NASA never covered it up. It simply wasn't that big an issue. It was an engineering problem. They had engineers. The engineers solved it. Why make a big fuss about it?

Nicolas
2007-Mar-12, 09:49 PM
ok, I see: I really have to apologize now!
it wasn't my intention, but i obviously caused more of a fuddle than intended!
I mean, i constructed this post from................scrap! Slight of Hand, Leger de Main, Devil Do, Imp Work,...............you name it!
As i said, I followed a whim (spring inspired?) and made up a superficialy convincing cover up from nothing but rarified air.
The impressing sounding (to me) passage about the "propellant feedlines" I simply pasted from a recent thread, in which Nicolas shone as especialy well informed and knowledgable! I was sure that he would have a deja vue and may be a laugh! So the whole thing was intended as something rather innocent.

but the question concerning the central engine is interresting anyway..........why didn't the oscillations show in the previous flights........might there really have been some sweeping under the carpet going on here?

I just made a joke about senile posters, but now I can't remember writing anything about fuel lines and pogoing myself :D

But I understand the context of your post now :).

satori
2007-Mar-12, 09:51 PM
I am happy that you are willing to let me live

Nicolas
2007-Mar-12, 09:52 PM
I never said that ;).

But can you point me to the thread where I discussed the pogoing? I really can't remember and can't find it using the search function.

satori
2007-Mar-12, 10:20 PM
well, Nicolas, i didn't exactly mean to mean that you brought that point ( was in Saturn V Nostalgia by the way (quite at the end of the thread (post 16 to be precise))) but you were very closly envolved in the discussion, when joema pointed to the thing. So I felt quite sure you would have been aware of it.

anyway...........

Nicolas
2007-Mar-12, 11:20 PM
Oh that thread, ok now I can follow :).

tardis
2007-Mar-12, 11:25 PM
What Would it Take to Change Your Mind about Apollo?

If my understanding of the laws of probability were to suddenly change, or if I were to unlearn my knowledge of technology, space weather or the human condition, via lobotomy or brain injury, I would probably think differently.

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-13, 02:09 AM
but the question concerning the central engine is interresting anyway..........why didn't the oscillations show in the previous flights........might there really have been some sweeping under the carpet going on here?

It varied depending on the flight conditions, 13 got the worst of the manned flights, but it occured on all. 6 was the worst over all, it did serious damage to the craft.

Peter B
2007-Mar-14, 01:29 AM
What Would it Take to Change Your Mind about Apollo?

If my understanding of the laws of probability were to suddenly change, or if I were to unlearn my knowledge of technology, space weather or the human condition, via lobotomy or brain injury, I would probably think differently.

Given your comments at the start of the "please explain" thread, what DO you know about technology and space weather?

Daryl71
2007-Mar-14, 01:50 AM
Given your comments at the start of the "please explain" thread, what DO you know about technology and space weather?

Space weather? As in "atmospheric conditions in outer space?" :dance:

tardis
2007-Mar-14, 01:57 AM
http://www.spaceweather.com/

bring an umbrella today you don't want to get your head dented by killer electrons.

tardis
2007-Mar-14, 02:13 AM
Would anyone know why some of my posts (randomly or not) need to be approved by a moderator. e.g. this one??

e.g.
- I post something simple in response to thread topic.
- Someone posts something, baiting me, implying that I'm ignorant.
- I reply and I get censored.

why not just kick me off the board AFTER I say something bad, instead of before I do.
Why have a conspiracies section if you don't want people to openly express their views?

Please explain.

tardis
2007-Mar-14, 02:18 AM
oh, forget it. It's probably a moderator preview of external links for junior members type of rule.

Whirlpool
2007-Mar-14, 03:21 AM
Knowing their purpose on why and how they did it to fool me.


:neutral:

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-14, 03:31 AM
oh, forget it. It's probably a moderator preview of external links for junior members type of rule.

Most likely, it's to help stop spam, but sometimes new posters get caught up in the system.

Whirlpool
2007-Mar-14, 04:23 AM
Would anyone know why some of my posts (randomly or not) need to be approved by a moderator. e.g. this one??

e.g.
- I post something simple in response to thread topic.
- Someone posts something, baiting me, implying that I'm ignorant.
- I reply and I get censored.

why not just kick me off the board AFTER I say something bad, instead of before I do.
Why have a conspiracies section if you don't want people to openly express their views?

Please explain.

Have you read the BAUT Rules?
If you havent , pls read it , you will find the answers there.

Nicolas
2007-Mar-14, 08:51 AM
Space weather? As in "atmospheric conditions in outer space?"

Actually "space weather" is the commonly used term for the total of environmental variables in space. (radiation, light intensity, solar winds, radiated heat, ...)

Moose
2007-Mar-14, 11:01 AM
oh, forget it. It's probably a moderator preview of external links for junior members type of rule.

That's exactly what it is. It cuts down on the spam. I think everyone recognizes it's a nuisance to our new posters, but you won't have to put up with it for very long. (IIRC, it stops around ten posts.)

Gmann
2007-Mar-14, 04:25 PM
I had the pleasure of watching a repeat of a History Channel show regarding the Moon landings, the original aired in 2004. They had interviews with Kaysing and some other bozo (forget the name, but a self taught Engineer). On the other side, was a Film Maker who demonstrated that the photographic evidence claimed by HB'ers was total bunk.

The self taught engineer showed a vacuum box he built to demonstrate that the gloves the Astronauts were wearing could not work in a vacuum. He operated the gloves in normal earth environment, then turned on the vacuum, and could not use them. Compelling evidence! Too bad the Astronauts weren't wearing rubber gloves on the Moon. Of course, he drug out the "c-rock" as definitive evidence, which has been debunked more times than people have sung the song "happy birthday to you". My knowledge of space flight, and engineering is very limited, but I can see gaping holes in the HB'ers "evidence".

As for self taught engineers, I taught myself to build small block Chevrolet engines capable of producing over 425 HP. It only took 3 tries before I made one that didn't, (excuse the pun) blow itself to the Moon. If anyone sees a Chevrolet piston in any image taken of the Moon, or Mars for that matter, thats one of mine, not some long lost civilization.

To the original question of what would change your mind, in my case, faced with what I grew up seeing on TV, the evidence placed by HB'ers, and the real science that debunks their "evidence", I would have to say , nothing. We landed on the Moon in 1969, visited a few more times, end of discussion.

NEOWatcher
2007-Mar-14, 04:43 PM
...Of course, he drug out the "c-rock" as definitive evidence, which has been debunked more times than people have sung the song "happy birthday to you". My knowledge of space flight, and engineering is very limited, but I can see gaping holes in the HB'ers "evidence"...
See, that's the problem I have with the History Channel and credibility. They should have left the engineer with the glove, and find a self-taught geologist for the rock. :p

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 05:14 PM
They had interviews with Kaysing and some other bozo (forget the name, but a self taught Engineer).

That would be Ralph Rene.

On the other side, was a Film Maker who demonstrated that the photographic evidence claimed by HB'ers was total bunk.

And that would be me, although I wouldn't label myself a filmmaker as such. Glad you liked it! We filmed a lot more than what you saw. One of my favorite deleted scenes was the entire film crew reflected in the astronaut's visor. I'll admit they did rather gratuitously crowd around, but we had the cameraman, the director, the boom guy, and the grip holding a reflector all neatly framed in the visor, showing how difficult it is to film around reflective surfaces.

And I want to give a big hand to Ollie, the actor in the space suit, who braved a long, hot shoot in the middle of the night.

http://www.clavius.org/img/ollie-coke.jpg

Thanks also to Virginia, the director, who was always eager to hear my suggestions and whose nimble fingers finally got the Hassy magazine loaded properly. Thanks also to Alistair the producer, who can be forgiven for knowing that coriander is pronounced cilantro in California.

Too bad the Astronauts weren't wearing rubber gloves on the Moon.

Well they were, but not the kind Rene tested. The outer gauntlet with the silicone finger tips and Chromel mesh was not pressurized. It was worn over a pressurized Neoprene glove. The inner glove had knobby knuckles -- bulges that collapsed or stretched as necessary to maintain constant volume during finger flexion. It's a standard engineering technique, but one with which Rene is obviously not familiar.

My knowledge of space flight, and engineering is very limited, but I can see gaping holes in the HB'ers "evidence".

Because you have an open mind and a willingness to be taught.

As for self taught engineers, I taught myself to build small block Chevrolet engines capable of producing over 425 HP. It only took 3 tries before I made one that didn't, (excuse the pun) blow itself to the Moon.

Guess what? We professional engineers suffer the same trials.

I am constantly amazed at the degree to which people are willing and able to educate themselves. Ralph Rene, however, isn't one of those people. He cannot demonstrate a competent knowlege of engineering, therefore it doesn't matter how he claimed he got his understanding: he obviously didn't get it.

sts60
2007-Mar-14, 05:22 PM
The self taught engineer

Ralph Rene. (http://www.clavius.org/bibcast.html)

showed a vacuum box he built to demonstrate that the gloves the Astronauts were wearing could not work in a vacuum. He operated the gloves in normal earth environment, then turned on the vacuum, and could not use them. Compelling evidence! Too bad the Astronauts weren't wearing rubber gloves on the Moon.

And too bad their suits weren't pressurized to one atmosphere.

My knowledge of space flight, and engineering is very limited, but I can see gaping holes in the HB'ers "evidence".

But that's because you are willing to learn something, and use reason.

As for self taught engineers, I taught myself to build small block Chevrolet engines capable of producing over 425 HP. It only took 3 tries before I made one that didn't, (excuse the pun) blow itself to the Moon. If anyone sees a Chevrolet piston in any image taken of the Moon, or Mars for that matter, thats one of mine, not some long lost civilization.

You were a self-taught automotive engineer. You earned it by accomplishing something. Rene, on the other hand, does not earn the sobriquet "self-taught engineer", because he has repeatedly demonstrated that he understands nothing about engineering and has produced nothing useful.

edited to add: ToSeeked!

Gillianren
2007-Mar-14, 08:19 PM
Thanks also to Alistair the producer, who can be forgiven for knowing that coriander is pronounced cilantro in California.

Actually, the seed is coriander; the leaves are cilantro.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 08:38 PM
Actually, the seed is coriander; the leaves are cilantro.

Only in the U.S. The film crew was from London, where coriander refers to the entire plant, especially leaves, and coriander seed is the distinction.

We had stopped off for dinner at a Subway and Alistair was ahead of me in line. The minimum-wage teenager behind the counter didn't know what he meant when he asked for coriander on the sandwich, and there followed the predictable comic dialogue of him directing her finger among the various bins of ingredients to indicate what he wanted. When he finally confirmed it, she was still confused because she knew the item by its American designation and wanted to make sure he knew what he was getting. I finally had to step in and translate between the two native English-speakers.

Another fun thing that happened: we drove past Vasquez Rock on the way out of the L.A. area. Since that landmark is the quintissential exterior location for generations of Star Trek episodes, we talked about breaking out the space suit and filming the whole thing there. Wouldn't look much like the Moon, but Star Trek fans would be rolling on the floor.

sts60
2007-Mar-14, 08:46 PM
Americans and the English: "two peoples divided by a common language". I don't recall who said that.

Donnie B.
2007-Mar-14, 08:54 PM
Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw are variously credited with that bon mot, but neither stated it exactly like that. I guess it falls into the category of "public domain".

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-14, 11:18 PM
we drove past Vasquez Rock on the way out of the L.A. area.

Also features greatly in Roswell and Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey.

Obviousman
2007-Mar-15, 08:32 AM
In Australia, we also refer to the leaf as coriander.

Gmann
2007-Mar-15, 03:32 PM
I find it funny that I did not recognize Jay Utah from the TV show. I have seen your picture before, but did not make the connection (strange since I forget names as a matter of habit, but do not forget a face).

As for the Corriander/Cilantro debate, according to Emeril Lagassi, Corriander is the mature plant, Cilantro is the early growth stage. On the other hand, I have selective dsylexic memory complex...i.e. I remember stuff backwards (sometimes)...It got me in trouble in Physics class on more than 1 occasion. So correct me if I'm wrong...exothermic reactions absorb heat, endothermic reactions release heat, as I remember from School. If this is wrong, it proves my point, and explains how I put 3 otherwise innocent Chevy engines to death, and aroused the ire of the NHRA Safety Safari.

Laguna
2007-Mar-15, 03:35 PM
So correct me if I'm wrong...exothermic reactions absorb heat, endothermic reactions release heat, as I remember from School. If this is wrong, it proves my point, and explains how I put 3 otherwise innocent Chevy engines to death, and aroused the ire of the NHRA Safety Safari.
It proves your point ;-)
An exothermic reaction releases heat.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-15, 07:37 PM
I find it funny that I did not recognize Jay Utah from the TV show.

Must be that white wig.

As for the Corriander/Cilantro debate, according to Emeril Lagassi, Corriander is the mature plant, Cilantro is the early growth stage.

That may indeed be how he used the words. I don't think there's universal agreement.

So correct me if I'm wrong...exothermic reactions absorb heat, endothermic reactions release heat...

Heat goes out of exothermic reactions, just as you go out of an exit and your breath goes out when you exhale. (Guess what ex is Latin for.)

Fazor
2007-Mar-15, 07:46 PM
(Guess what ex is Latin for.)

Um, I'm guessing it means "Loss of a large portion of one's estate, and aquisition of a large child-support bill"

JayUtah
2007-Mar-15, 07:48 PM
Um, I'm guessing it means "Loss of a large portion of one's estate, and aquisition of a large child-support bill"

Hence the custom of Romans to fall upon their own swords.

Sigma_Orionis
2007-Mar-15, 08:59 PM
That may indeed be how he used the words. I don't think there's universal agreement.

According to the Royal Spanish Academy of Language, Cilantro is used in spanish to refer to the whole herb.

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-15, 09:05 PM
Must be that white wig.

Nah it's most likely the voice. ;)

Gillianren
2007-Mar-16, 03:44 AM
Nah it's most likely the voice. ;)

Yeah, his voice is totally different when it's text.

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-16, 03:56 AM
Yeah, his voice is totally different when it's text.

Yup, he reads much more of a baritone. ;)

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 04:01 AM
I always hear his text as read by Sir John Gielgud, specifically as Hobson ;)

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 04:03 AM
I always hear his text as read by Sir John Gielgud, specifically as Hobson ;)

Must be the powdered wig...

Maksutov
2007-Mar-16, 06:35 AM
Must be the powdered wig...How do you know that's really a wig?

Have you ever seen Jay in person?

Maybe the photo's been doctored.

Maybe there's a cable holding the pigtail down.

And why would it be white when it's common knowledge the albedo of human hair used for wigs is very low, almost like the feathers of a raven.

Any powder, based on the angle of illumination that any artist can see, would have individual grains casting parallel shadows, contributing to an overall appearance of darkness.

Plus Jay admits to acting. Isn't that a dead give-away?

I suspect yet another Avatarian Hoax here.

BTW, those are just my opinions. I have no evidence whatsoever to back them up.

But it's common knowledge the truth (or repeated opinions in the face of evidence to the contrary) will make you free.

In this case it will free me of my PGMA check.

Time to start working for the Avatarians.

;)

Whirlpool
2007-Mar-16, 07:09 AM
I suspect yet another Avatarian Hoax here.



There are hoaxes on these? :eek:

I think maybe because of the digital technology that anyone can paint and remodify the image posted on one person's avatar , like that of Jays. :think:

I kinda like the hair though. :D

Svector
2007-Mar-16, 08:27 AM
I always hear his text as read by Sir John Gielgud, specifically as Hobson ;)

LOL. Yep, you're right on the money. Gielgud had my all time favorite movie line in Arthur:

"Try not to speak."

Maybe Jay could borrow it the next time he's trying to reason with a CT.

:p

Swift
2007-Mar-16, 01:49 PM
Maybe the photo's been doctored.

You forgot to mention that the background in the photo is dark, yet you can't see any stars.

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 02:28 PM
How do you know that's really a wig?

Have you ever seen Jay in person?

Maybe the photo's been doctored.

Maybe there's a cable holding the pigtail down.

And why would it be white when it's common knowledge the albedo of human hair used for wigs is very low, almost like the feathers of a raven.

Any powder, based on the angle of illumination that any artist can see, would have individual grains casting parallel shadows, contributing to an overall appearance of darkness.

Plus Jay admits to acting. Isn't that a dead give-away?

I suspect yet another Avatarian Hoax here.

BTW, those are just my opinions. I have no evidence whatsoever to back them up.

But it's common knowledge the truth (or repeated opinions in the face of evidence to the contrary) will make you free.

In this case it will free me of my PGMA check.

Time to start working for the Avatarians.

;)

Well I do have to say I based my comment solely on Jay's own comments, accepted his word as the Truth™ , and did not bother doing any real research for myself. Once I had "discovered" the wig was powdered, I simply came to this thread and started parroting this new found knowledge verbatim. In the next few posts I plan on having a meltdown, moving the goal post of what constitutes proof, and putting the burden of said proof on the obvious Wig Disinformation Agents, ignoring questions, and then starting a new thread on the same subject so I can continue to argue the fact about the wig ad infinitum.

And then maybe I'll have lunch ;)

Orion437
2007-Mar-17, 04:35 PM
I think that lunar rock samples are indisputable evidence that hoax believers always forget. They are imposible to fake, and they have been under scientific study of several nations since the moon landings.

Just my two cents.

Sorry for my english.

Laguna
2007-Mar-17, 07:52 PM
I think that lunar rock samples are indisputable evidence that hoax believers always forget. They are imposible to fake, and they have been under scientific study of several nations since the moon landings.

Just my two cents.

Sorry for my english.
No problem with your english.
But you forget that those hoax believers are of the unalterable opinion that lunites found here on earth are used to fake the lunar rocks.
And as scientific studies are done by scientist, who are liars as per definition, these studies are nothing more worth than the paper that the burger I just ate was wrapped in. For them.

Astrowannabe
2007-Mar-17, 10:19 PM
I guess if there was one piece of evidence that would at the very least get me to admit that yes, perhapes we did fake the moon landings, it would be for some HB, somewhere, to produce a fake moonrock.

I actually heard a few HB say that "faking moonrocks is the easiest thing in the world". Yet I've never, ever heard of anyone actually creating a fake moonrock that would fool a geologist.

However, if someone was to find a way to fake a moonrock and actually trick the world's geological community into thinking it was a moonrock, then I would at least be willing to entertain some kind of debate on a possible moonhoax.

Mind you that by itself still wouldn't convince me, not by a long shot. But it would at least open up the door for the possibility. Because without that, there is simply no way to fake the Apollo missions. Ever.

Hamlet
2007-Mar-17, 11:03 PM
I guess if there was one piece of evidence that would at the very least get me to admit that yes, perhapes we did fake the moon landings, it would be for some HB, somewhere, to produce a fake moonrock.

I actually heard a few HB say that "faking moonrocks is the easiest thing in the world". Yet I've never, ever heard of anyone actually creating a fake moonrock that would fool a geologist.

However, if someone was to find a way to fake a moonrock and actually trick the world's geological community into thinking it was a moonrock, then I would at least be willing to entertain some kind of debate on a possible moonhoax.

Mind you that by itself still wouldn't convince me, not by a long shot. But it would at least open up the door for the possibility. Because without that, there is simply no way to fake the Apollo missions. Ever.

This is a good idea. I've told other HBers that a sure way to improve their case would be to develop a fake moonrock that would pass muster with an independent group of geologists. I've suggested that maybe Percy and Sibrel could pool some of the money they have fleeced from their followers and put it toward such a test.

Of course, this will never happen. Evidence is anathema to these people. It's much better for them and their incomes if they continue to play upon the ignorance of the people who buy their books and videos. It's very easy to crow about how simple it is to fake a moonrock, but I suspect most of the HBers who make a living from this deception know that it can't be done.

Svector
2007-Mar-17, 11:04 PM
I guess if there was one piece of evidence that would at the very least get me to admit that yes, perhapes we did fake the moon landings, it would be for some HB, somewhere, to produce a fake moonrock.

Even if they could be manufactured with 2007 technology, that wouldn't explain how geologists were authenticating samples in 1969 and 1970.

But I agree with you in the sense that a bonafide fake (pardon the oxymoron) moon rock capable of fooling 21st-century geologists would definitely raise some eyebrows. It would establish as possible, something previously thought to be impossible, but would still be only the first step of a thousand mile journey as far as I'm concerned.

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-18, 01:48 AM
One of the problems with creating moonrock is, What do you make it like?

You can make a rock and claim it is moonrock, but unless you actually know what a moonrock is like, how do you know you have it right?

The whole Lunarite as Apollo moonrock claim falls over here quite simply because how would NASA know which rocks were Earth rocks, which were Lunarites, and which were normal meteorites. If you look at a Lunarite, it actually looks for the most part like a normal Earth Rock, so they are hard to tell apart. They are different from normal meteorites, but since NASA wouldn't have known that, if they went and collected a heap of Meteorites they wouldn't have gotten any Lunarites.

See the problem is that no-one knew that a Lunarite was from the Moon until 1981 when the comparasion to the Apollo samples showed it was. Now of course you could say but they picked out all the meteorites of a certain type, and we have no proof that these and Lunarites are really from the moon, well except that the Soviets brought some back robotically, and the Apollo samples and the Lunarites match with those too.

So the only solution for the HB's is to claim that NASA had magical foresight and knew exactly what a moonrock looked like before they ever saw one.

Swift
2007-Mar-18, 04:26 AM
Somewhere in the the CT forum are at least two previous discussions about how one could fake a moon rock. I have to toot my own horn here, but as a PhD in solid state inorganic chemistry, I know quite a lot about this. I have during my career grown crystals of at three different materials that have mineralogical equivalents: calcium fluorite, quartz, and pyrite, the first two in industrial (tons) quantities.

The consensus was that it would take years of work to come upon with a method to fake even small quantities and that it is highly doubtful that they would fool a trained geologist or solid-state chemist. To fake hundreds of kilos.... well, it would be easier to go to the moon.

One previous discussion (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=40353)

dwrunyon
2007-Mar-18, 04:47 AM
As a former HB, I would just like to pipe in and remind some of you that we don't so much think that the moon rocks were faked, but rather gotten using unmanned craft... so from that point of view, the existence of moon rocks proves nothing... we know we have them, we just don't believe astronauts picked them up and packed them into the ship. Or rather "they"... as mentioned, I no longer count amongst the "we" :whistle:

JayUtah
2007-Mar-18, 06:01 AM
As a former HB...

Just wanted to make sure you know I saw this.

...we don't so much think that the moon rocks were faked, but rather gotten using unmanned craft...

Among the (former) we, the primary theories are: (1) manufactured in a lab, (2) Earth rocks possibly doctored, (3) meteorites found in Antarctica, (4) retrieved by unmanned lander, or some combination of them.

Each of these theories has problems. For (1), no one can figure out how that might have been done, and no geologist can be found who will say he would be fooled by it. (2) is essentially a claim that geologists wouldn't know moon rocks if they saw them, having nothing against which to compare them. Spend some time reading geology papers or talking to geologists and you'll see how silly that claim is. (3) doesn't work for many reasons: the lunites weren't found in time, in great enough numbers, and they wouldn't fool geologists. (4) is discussed below.

...so from that point of view, the existence of moon rocks proves nothing... we know we have them, we just don't believe astronauts picked them up and packed them into the ship.

Right, and that's somewhat the problem: the conspiracists don't believe in a thing so much as against a thing. When your goal is to avoid one certain idea, you get into some pretty desperate and illogical thinking. You have to paint certain experts as idiots. You have to imagine unlimited budgets and ingenuity.

But most egregiously, you have to change the whole landscape of the argument. Instead of comparing one theory against another to see which one best explains the evidence, you try to stack the deck in favor of your theory and try to make the other guy do all the uphill work.

(1) and (3) are essentially impossible. (2) works unless you know anything about geology; if you do, it's not impossible but just highly absurd.

(4) seems most logical because the Russians actually did it. So you stack the deck by assuming (4) is the default explanation and trying to put the exclusive burden of proof on the Apollo astronaut theory. That is, you say, "Since we know it was possible to get Moon rocks by remote sample-return, the Apollo samples aren't proof that men went to the Moon to get them."

We dismiss it as deck-stacking because it avoids an important burden of proof.

How do we know it was possible to retrieve lunar samples remotely? Because the Russians did it that way. And they can provide no end of historical and engineering data to show how it was done. We have examples of the spacecraft. We tracked them to the Moon ourselves and knew what they were up to. We got to see their samples too.

If you accept all that as fact, you have to accept also as fact the relative unreliability of the Russian sample-return method, and the limitations even when it did work. You basically got a convenience sample with the Russian method; whatever was nearby. And not much of it. Not to be too flippant, but the Russians basically got as much as would fit in a ketchup bottle -- mixed gravel and dust.

From the Apollo samples alone, I've personally seen more lunar material than the Russians ever got. The Apollo samples are differentiated. Some of them are core samples. Some of them are chip samples knocked off with a hammer. Some have a mass of several kilograms each. Some are documented, meaning that geologists on Earth watching the missions told the astronauts to pick up a certain rock they saw on television, and then were able to study that same rock in the lab. And there is just under half a ton of the stuff, not a ketchup bottle's worth.

In short, the nature of the Apollo samples cannot be answered by the sample-return method. We still don't know how to take core samples remotely, for example. So when you say it was possible to retrieve samples remotely, that's just not true. It's true only in the most meaningless and superficial way. The Russians can have retrieved the Russian samples by the sample-return method, but the Apollo samples cannot have been returned by a similar method.

I've already alluded to the other point in the burden of proof: the Russians told us how they did it. As an engineer, I and others can look at those designs and mockups and conclude that they probably would have worked as designed. They're credible. And there's evidence they were used: we tracked them, we can talk to the people who built and operated them.

Even if we accept that somehow a sample-return program could have retrieved what we now have as the Apollo samples, where is the evidence that such unmanned spacecraft actually existed? Where are the plans? Where are the people who built them? Operated them? Why didn't the Russians track them? The English?

That's why deck-stacking is very bad. If you examine the Apollo theory and the sample-return theory side by side and start them on equal ground, all the evidence points to the Apollo theory. Not just a preponderance of it, but the entirety of it. That's why conspiracy theorists go to extreme lengths to make sure their theory has an undeserved head start. Their head start, in fact, is already past the finish line; the conspiracists don't even run the race.

Astrowannabe
2007-Mar-18, 06:15 AM
As a former HB, I would just like to pipe in and remind some of you that we don't so much think that the moon rocks were faked, but rather gotten using unmanned craft... so from that point of view, the existence of moon rocks proves nothing... we know we have them, we just don't believe astronauts picked them up and packed them into the ship. Or rather "they"... as mentioned, I no longer count amongst the "we" :whistle:


Yeah, I kind of figured someone would bring this up but I was too lazy to comment on it in my first post. So, allow me to address this. Btw, congrats on being a former HB. Glad to know we've changed at least one mind!

The best unmanned sample return mission from the Apollo era was done by the Soviets. They where able to send a lander to the moon and scoop up about 100 grams of lunar soil (I'm pretty sure it was 100. perhapes it was a few hundred, but at any rate it was a fairly small amount). This was also only soil, nothing larger then a pebble. It was also strictly surface soil, no core sample. AND it was all collected from one spot, namly the only spot that the landers arm could reach.

Compare that with the several hundred kilograms of moonrock that Apollo brought back. And this was not just loose soil, but in many cases large rocks AND core samples, taken from a wide variety of geologically interesting sites on the moon. In other words, far, FAR more then what the Soviets where able to do. Many of these sites were kilometers apart (from the same mission). Consider that with todays technology, the Mars rovers took years to cover a few kilometers and also in no way could have collected rocks. The idea of a Mars sample return mission was droped when they realized how costly and complex it would make the mission (although I believe we are still planning a future one).

In short, there is simply no way to get the amount and variety of rock samples that Apollo got without people up there getting them. Robots can do a lot, but that kind of a task is simply beyond any robot that we have today, never mind 40 years ago.

So if a HB is going to say that the rocks where collected with a robot, then instead of making a fake moonrock they would have to build a lunar robot using 1960's technology which could accomplish that task. And trust me, no one will ever be able to do that.

So I guess that's 2 ways to make me second guess myself. Make a fake moonrock or make a lunar robot.

*Edit: I see Jay already beat me to it :)

SpitfireIX
2007-Mar-18, 11:54 AM
Why didn't the Russians track them? The English?

Careful, Jay--you may draw the ire of Architect.:D

Sigma_Orionis
2007-Mar-18, 11:58 AM
Why didn't the Russians track them? The English?

Careful, Jay--you may draw the ire of Architect.:D

Well it would not be the first time an Architect and an Engineer had an argument....... :dance:

gwiz
2007-Mar-18, 12:23 PM
One of the problems with creating moonrock is, What do you make it like?

You can make a rock and claim it is moonrock, but unless you actually know what a moonrock is like, how do you know you have it right?

There is a further point to this: the Apollo samples didn't fit any of the three common pre-Apollo theories of the moon's origin. However, they did show strong resemblances to the later Russian samples and subsequently discovered lunites. It was only the development of the big impactor theory of the moon's origin in the late 1970s that gave a satisfactory match with the characteristics shown by all three sample sources.

So the hypothetical fakers not only came up with something that matched the future Russian samples and the lunites, they matched a scientific theory that had yet to be developed.

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-18, 10:58 PM
There is a further point to this: the Apollo samples didn't fit any of the three common pre-Apollo theories of the moon's origin. However, they did show strong resemblances to the later Russian samples and subsequently discovered lunites. It was only the development of the big impactor theory of the moon's origin in the late 1970s that gave a satisfactory match with the characteristics shown by all three sample sources.

So the hypothetical fakers not only came up with something that matched the future Russian samples and the lunites, they matched a scientific theory that had yet to be developed.

Yes, the fact that the samples were devoid of water even in formation is a critcial factor. Until a moonrock was seen there is no way that NASA could have know this. In fact pre-1969 had you suggested it, most geologists would have laughed you out of the room. Rocks on Earth contain water, there is no way of getting around it. That the moon samples didn't is what lead to science having to change its entire ideas of Lunar formation.

Orion437
2007-Mar-19, 02:33 AM
What does the Moon Hoax believers think about the Russians at that time? That they were so stupid to not notice the supossedly hoax? Or that their intelligent services were totally incompetent?

JonClarke
2007-Mar-19, 03:17 AM
I've already alluded to the other point in the burden of proof: the Russians told us how they did it. As an engineer, I and others can look at those designs and mockups and conclude that they probably would have worked as designed. They're credible. And there's evidence they were used: we tracked them, we can talk to the people who built and operated them.

Add to the fact that with the Russian sample return hardwarewe also have, just as with Apollo, unflown hardware and actual flown hardware (the sample return capsules) available for inspection. As with Apollo, this evidence has been examined by engineers from round the world and, post cold war, the project engineers round the world are avilable for interview. Plus the samples have been studied by engineers from many countries.

By contrast there is not one fragment of physical, documentary, or oral evidence the supposed unmanned missions that the US used to obtain the samples credited to Apollo. Despite the fact that, to collect the amount and diversity of samples already mentioned would require mission much larger complex and capable that the LUna sample return missions which, even by todays standards, were some of the largest and most ambitious unmanned missions ever attempted.

Jon

Swift
2007-Mar-19, 03:24 AM
What does the Moon Hoax believers think about the Russians at that time? That they were so stupid to not notice the supossedly hoax? Or that their intelligent services were totally incompetent?
One idea that has been proposed is that the Russians were bribed into silence by US selling them wheat. Must have been pretty good wheat to keep them quiet for 40 years.

JonClarke
2007-Mar-19, 03:30 AM
The Russians were selling coal, diamonds, nickel, platinum gas and titantium to the west for decades. What perks did that buy them?

Jon

CJSF
2007-Mar-20, 08:31 PM
The Russians were selling coal, diamonds, nickel, platinum gas and titantium to the west for decades. What perks did that buy them?

Jon

Platinum gas? Is that safe?

CJSF :eh:

Svector
2007-Mar-20, 09:07 PM
One idea that has been proposed is that the Russians were bribed into silence by US selling them wheat.

In other words, the Soviets helped the U.S. pull off a hoax that was intended to fool the Soviets?

nomuse
2007-Mar-20, 09:57 PM
Of course the Soviets would rather lie to their people en masse. The only alternative would be to let their people starve en masse, and that would be out of the question for a Communist regime...

dgavin
2007-Mar-26, 07:31 AM
One idea that has been proposed is that the Russians were bribed into silence by US selling them wheat. Must have been pretty good wheat to keep them quiet for 40 years.

I find this a fascinating veiw point, especially as the US had started to Embargo Grain exports to the former USSR, in 1954 and didn't stop the Embargo until 1982.

AtomicDog
2007-Mar-26, 01:53 PM
Let me get this straight: HBs claim that we bought Russian silence on the Apollo Hoax with grain, grain that we didn't start sending them until ten years after the last Apollo flight? What kept them silent in the meantime?

dgavin
2007-Mar-26, 02:44 PM
Let me get this straight: HBs claim that we bought Russian silence on the Apollo Hoax with grain, grain that we didn't start sending them until ten years after the last Apollo flight? What kept them silent in the meantime?

Basicaly yes, that is what they are saying. Maybe they were hoping everyone would forget about the grain embargos back then. . .

jamini
2007-Mar-26, 02:45 PM
Let me get this straight: HBs claim that we bought Russian silence on the Apollo Hoax with grain, grain that we didn't start sending them until ten years after the last Apollo flight? What kept them silent in the meantime?
Hadn't you heard? They were abducted by aliens and later held captive at area 51.

Laguna
2007-Mar-26, 02:45 PM
[...] Maybe they were hoping everyone would forget about the grain embargos back then. . .
I would rather assume that they did/do not even know/care about them...

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-26, 09:22 PM
The HB's often quote a shipment that was supposed to have occured in 1974. Doing a quick check I can't locate anything about such a shipment, but of course if it did happen it would have been done in secret. ;)

Zvezdichko
2009-Jan-23, 06:13 PM
When I was younger I watched a movie (probably the Fox TV "documentary") about the moon landings. It was all about lack of stars, waving flag, etc...

Then I joined a local discussion group and somebody pointed me to badastronomy.com ... It didn't take me a lot of time to convince myself that the landings really happened.

Well, I have had doubts since them, for example, I have wondered how it was posible to do the think in 1969 and why it is not possible to do it now. Luckily, there are websites like clavius.org...

AlekseyA
2009-May-07, 04:10 AM
There is one piece of "proof" on the hoax side that I find somewhat convincing (but I'm still leaning closer to the moon landings being real).
I did a bit of googling but couldn't find anything trying to debunk the astronauts supposedly faking the distance of the spacecraft from Earth. If you don't know what I'm talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzVvXdYAwuE
It's mostly near the end of the video.
Again, I'm not trying to make a fool of myself, but I'm looking to hear some possible explanations.

apolloman
2009-May-07, 11:11 AM
You didn't find anything on the web to debunk because a debunk is not necessary.

These so-called trcikery films weren't anything of the sort; the CSM couldn't always transmit "live" to Houston (due to antenna layouts, connections between Goldstone and Houston etc) except for the planned TV transmissions; however the crew did occasionally turn on the camera for unscheduled TV broadcasts (for equipment testing, as Armstrong himself explains in those films, or for other reasons) and these are those films this video mentions. These were beamed to Goldstone or other tracking stations where they were recorded and sent on to Houston.

They were never meant to be "secret". Infact, SCF's "Apollo 11" dvd contains ALL these films.

No mystery at all.

If you are wondering about the so called earth in the CSM window towards the end of the film, if you look closely you don't actually see anything apart from what appears to be a bluish glare; this isn't the earth but simply the dispersion of sun light on the window. I don't have the technical knowlegde to give you the right terms but these glare effect can be seen on a number of CSM TV transmissions for other missions to the moon. Remember that the sun light is so bright compared to the internal lighting of the CSM that if they set the camera to see perfectly in the dim CSM light, the sun light on the window would "flare up" a substantial.

There are plenty of experts here who could give you the proper technical stuff but I think this argument has been done so many times you wont be getting a reply. I might be wrong though.
In the meantime, why not do some research into photography, lighting etc and try to come up with your own explanation. That could be debunked.

Jason Thompson
2009-May-07, 02:34 PM
There is one piece of "proof" on the hoax side that I find somewhat convincing (but I'm still leaning closer to the moon landings being real).
I did a bit of googling but couldn't find anything trying to debunk the astronauts supposedly faking the distance of the spacecraft from Earth. If you don't know what I'm talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzVvXdYAwuE
It's mostly near the end of the video.
Again, I'm not trying to make a fool of myself, but I'm looking to hear some possible explanations.

For a possible explanation, you should try to get hold of the uncut film and TV from Apollo 11. Contrary to the claim on the video, you can actually get it from at least two sources other than that.

The narration on that video leads you to the conclusions the producer wants you to arrive at. Conveniently, he cut the parts of the footage that clearly show the Earth, which he says is a transparency attached to the window, actually being obscured by the edge of the window, and then dispappearing from one window only to reappear in another....

LaurelHS
2009-May-07, 04:57 PM
There is one piece of "proof" on the hoax side that I find somewhat convincing (but I'm still leaning closer to the moon landings being real).
I did a bit of googling but couldn't find anything trying to debunk the astronauts supposedly faking the distance of the spacecraft from Earth. If you don't know what I'm talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzVvXdYAwuE
It's mostly near the end of the video.
Again, I'm not trying to make a fool of myself, but I'm looking to hear some possible explanations.

Have you seen the Clavius pages about this?
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html

PhantomWolf has also examined it very closely.
http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11/

JayUtah
2009-May-07, 06:21 PM
...

Again, I'm not trying to make a fool of myself, but I'm looking to hear some possible explanations.

The explanation is that Bart Sibrel thought he had footage that no one else would be able to get, so he felt confident in cutting bits and pieces of it together to make up whatever story he felt like.

Conspiracy theorists -- none of whom has any training or prior adjudicated experience in photographic analysis -- simply declare that the blue dispersion through the CM window must be the nearby Earth. No other explanation; just that assertion.

robross
2009-May-08, 02:16 AM
In order for me to doubt that we actually landed on the Moon, I think I would have to hear at least 3 of the lunar astronauts, from at least 2 different missions, publicly state they had been lying. And I would also need some kind of corroborating documentation, like maybe some engineering report from that era about some piece of technology supposedly on the lander that clearly shows it was not able to do whatever it was supposed to do.

And even then, I'd still be a little skeptical, but I would have to insist on an investigation at that point.

Rob

Starfury
2009-May-08, 02:23 AM
So many of the hoax believers say that actually seeing hardware brought back from the Moon would convince them. Similarly, something that would convince me of a hoax would be to see the alleged sets where the fake landings were produced, preserved from the 60's. All six of them.

Having hundreds of people who worked on Apollo admit to a hoax might convince me the landings were faked.

But of course neither of these things exist.

AlekseyA
2009-May-08, 04:30 AM
Thanks Jay and Laurel!

skeptic_41
2009-May-08, 09:27 PM
I've often asked conspiracists what it would take for them to fully accept the reality of the Apollo moon landings. What bit, or string of evidence would they require before they'd be able to admit it was all authentic, and faithful to NASA's version of events.

.

Mot of the replies I have seen so far indicate they think you are asking them what it would take for them to believe that they are a hoax.

I don't have to believe they happened, I know they did. I was 19 when Armstrong first stepped out of the LM.

I know what would convince the HB/CT clowns that they were real. Why would the US mint put the Eagle landing on the Moon on the back of the Eisenhower Dollar if they didn't happen?

Gillianren
2009-May-09, 12:00 AM
Mot of the replies I have seen so far indicate they think you are asking them what it would take for them to believe that they are a hoax.

That's because it's what he's asking.

skeptic_41
2009-May-11, 02:36 AM
That's because it's what he's asking.

Oh, okay.

I know they are not a hoax. So do the Russians.

Gillianren
2009-May-11, 04:57 AM
Oh, okay.

I know they are not a hoax. So do the Russians.

So do we all. That's not the point. The point is, supposing it were a hoax, given what you know now, what would it take to convince you that it was hoaxed? This is a logical question given that we generally ask the hoax believers what it would take to convince them that it wasn't. If we couldn't answer it in the reverse ourselves, that would be hypocritical of us.

Tedward
2009-May-11, 07:34 AM
I am not sure even the astronauts saying it was a fake. Problem is there is nothing that says to me it was not doable. Granted I am not an expert in rockets or orbital mechanics but a keen interest in all things science and life and job experiences I think I can get a good understanding of things outside my normal experience. For example understanding (though not an expert) how rockets work, how to get to where the moon will be etc.

But to hoax it, again drawing on personal experience and qualifications then I have the issue that it is far harder to pull the wool over the eyes than actually doing it. Coupled with the drive of people involved, most of whom appeared to have been very driven and any mention of a hoax to such people means they would have left. This also raises the grape vine and word getting around that working on such a shonky program would mean you start to attract the lesser capable and errors would increase. And so on.

All in all it would have to be some very big holes in the method and application. These "holes" would need to show that the hoax was the only method. Dilemma is that I cannot see the hoax way working ever. Not convincingly.

gwiz
2009-May-11, 01:59 PM
I'd want to know exactly how the hoax was done, because there are several areas that really puzzle me about the hoax theory.

The main ones would be:

the communications, ie conversations about contemporary events from the direction of the moon with exactly the right time-delay and doppler;

all the observations by amateur and professional astronomers, what hardware was there to produce things like the debris cloud from Apollo 13;

the rocks, if really from the moon, what hardware could gather large documented samples, cores, etc, who made it, when and where was it launched, or if faked on earth, why did they pick something that wasn't consistent with the pre-existing theories about the moon's formation, how did they know the samples would be consistent with subsequent Russian samples and lunar meteorites, how could they pass tests that hadn't been thought of at the time;

and the rest of the scientific data, how did they know it would be consistent with the findings from later missions.

Tedward
2009-May-11, 05:08 PM
Re communications. That is something that also interests me. The logistics alone are huge let alone method to be employed. And that is before any signals leave Earth, after that (leaving earth) the hoax is a fairy story.

R.A.F.
2009-May-12, 03:24 PM
The only thing that would convince me that Apollo was a hoax is to "discover" that the last 50 or so years of my life were actually a dream.

dgavin
2009-May-15, 07:22 PM
What would it take for me to change my mind?

40 Billion tax free dollars, with the stipulation that I get to say I was paid to change my mind.

I still wouldn't belive in the hoax though.

Ok, so I'm greedy....

Rift
2009-May-15, 07:46 PM
Reading through this thread, and already knowing the mountains of evidence that we did go to the moon, leads me to believe it would be easier just to go to the moon in 1969 then to pull off the hoax the hoax believers think was pulled off.

Swift
2009-May-15, 07:47 PM
40 Billion tax free dollars, with the stipulation that I get to say I was paid to change my mind.

I'd be willing to do it for $400 million. Wow, think of the savings! :D

Donnie B.
2009-May-15, 08:59 PM
What would it take for me?

Alzheimer's.

LAFEE
2009-May-16, 01:30 AM
Americans specialize in Hollywood and in marketing so for me it would be the day when science is more important to people than movie stars. plus even though the USSR doesnt exist and Russia has been in difficulty for 20 years they still are jealous of Russians. They have a childish kind of jealousy, in the same way a common north american teenager labels germans as nazis. Even the economist usese a very harsh tone and sometimes manipulates facts in articles about germany, russia or france...You can't be productive when you hate. Plus Armstrong is a Leo and Leos makes the greatest number of actors in the world. they love to be at the center of attention.

dgavin
2009-May-16, 01:39 AM
I'd be willing to do it for $400 million. Wow, think of the savings! :D

Do I have to send William Shattner over there to teach you how to negotiate?:lol:

dgavin
2009-May-16, 01:47 AM
Americans .....even though the USSR doesnt exist and Russia has been in difficulty for 20 years they still are jealous of Russians.

Wrong...


They have a childish kind of jealousy, in the same way a common north american teenager labels germans as nazis.

Wrong again...

I personaly am an American with German ancestry. Never ONCE has anyone here evey called me a Nazi.


Even the economist usese a very harsh tone and sometimes manipulates facts in articles about germany, russia or france....

Since when is any enconmist a respresentitive of anything but economy? If you think somethign an economist says has any bearing on what americans as a bulk think, then you have a lot to learn. A LOT!


You can't be productive when you hate. Plus Armstrong is a Leo and Leos makes the greatest number of actors in the world. they love to be at the center of attention.

So many insults in such a sort time? Did you not even read the forum rules. AdHom attacks are not allowed here, and you just made aleast five of them.

Moderators?

Tinaa
2009-May-16, 02:12 AM
LAFEE please read http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html. This is a friendly nudge. Next time you will receive a warning.

LaurelHS
2009-May-16, 02:24 AM
The Leo thing is amusingly inaccurate, because Armstrong is known to be a private person and he has said that he doesn't like to be the center of attention and that he shouldn't get all the credit for Apollo 11's success. From A Man On The Moon by Andrew Chaikin: "Privately, he has said he can't understand why everyone focuses on the first lunar landing more than the other flights; after all, Apollo was a group effort (my emphasis). To him the title First Man on the Moon has little meaning, since in his mind the landing itself was the flight's most significant accomplishment -- a feat he and Buzz Aldrin achieved at the same moment."

Rift
2009-May-16, 12:44 PM
The Leo/Armstrong thing was amusing. Must not be familiar with Armstrong AT ALL. Attributing attributes based on astrology on THIS board? sheesh

I'm also of heavily german descent (3rd generation german/american, know a fair bit of german) Blond Hair, Blue Eyes, Nordic Build, NEVER been called a NAZI. (Godwin pops up in the damndest threads)

Science is WAY more important to me then hollywood stars (and probably all americans on this forum). And I can safely say I have never been jealous of Russia, the USSR, or any of it's former countries. Except perhaps Latvia, my mother knew a family that was trapped here in the 30s when the USSR annexed them, and they stayed here against their will and well, became americans. So much so they have little desire to revisit(or visit it for the most part, all the ones born in lativa are now deceased.) Brave little country.

Tedward
2009-May-16, 11:26 PM
APlus Armstrong is a Leo and Leos makes the greatest number of actors in the world. they love to be at the center of attention.

Please excuse the snip, after this bit. I am 3/4 through a biography and from other information I have gleamed from other tomes it would appear that this is a good example of star signology (or whatever it is called) not worth the tabloids they are printed in. He strikes me as the complete opposite.

Torch2k
2009-May-17, 12:51 AM
I'd be really interested in seeing, just once, an all-singing, all-dancing explanation of how the Apollo missions could have been faked, how the vast majority of participants could have been fooled, and how the hoax could have been covered up for so long.

I've yet to see an Apollo hoax proponent present a compelling, comprehensive theory that addresses any meaningful subset of the elements a fake would require, proposes sensible solutions to the problems inherent in such a fake, or even attempts to offer explanations and demonstrations of the methods by which the accepted evidence could have been created.

The following are some of the things I'd expect to see from any hoax proponent hoping to compel me to even consider their 'theory':

1. Demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the history of NASA and the Apollo program, and describe in detail how a hoax could have been perpetrated concurrently with generally accepted agency/program activities. The elements that comprise the hoax should at least point to certain individuals or groups that participated in it. I'd be most interested to see names named and activities described. In detail, please.

2. Show at least a passing understanding of the systems and technologies incorporated into the program as officially described, then present convincing explanations of how they could have been contrived at the time, or subverted since then. For example, It's boring to hear the tired old 'LM couldn't have flown' argument presented without satisfactory explanation. I'd love to hear why it couldn't have landed on the moon, and what it would have needed to do so. In detail, please.

3. Explain, with demonstrations, how the photographic and filmic evidence were faked. And none of this 'guy named Kubrick who knew some pretty good SFX people', either. SHOW me how the effects were created, then SHOW me convincing film/stills that replicate those available from NASA. Shouldn't it be easy to recreate some lunar video, especially since proponents insist they know how it was faked? Set up your low-gravity rigs and shoot away. Use current technology, if you like. But describe and demonstrate the process. ID, P.

4. Whip up a couple of kilograms of moon rocks. Prove that they're indistinguishable from the samples we already have, and describe the process by which they were created. IDP.

And so on. These would be interesting, for a start, though. What would really impress me is that a 'theory' that incorporated such elements would seem at least a bit more worthy of consideration, and much less obviously a ploy to prey on the naive and credulous.

stutefish
2009-May-18, 07:06 PM
I'd be really interested in seeing, just once, an all-singing, all-dancing explanation of how the Apollo missions could have been faked, how the vast majority of participants could have been fooled, and how the hoax could have been covered up for so long.
It's my hypothesis that any successful hoaxing of the Apollo claims would have required a project substantially identical to the project as claimed.

slang
2009-May-18, 09:01 PM
"Eagle, Houston .. ABORT LANDING!! ABORT! YOU'LL RUIN OUR HOAX!"

stutefish
2009-May-18, 09:49 PM
"Eagle, Houston .. ABORT LANDING!! ABORT! YOU'LL RUIN OUR HOAX!"
Heh. I figured that a successful landing by Eagle would simply mean a successful perpetration of the hoax: "We claimed to put men on the moon--here's the evidence, prove me wrong!"

Torch2k
2009-May-20, 01:37 AM
It's my hypothesis that any successful hoaxing of the Apollo claims would have required a project substantially identical to the project as claimed.

And that's kinda what I was getting at. It's sad that hoax proponents refer to themselves as 'investigators' or 'researchers', when it's clear that they don't qualify as either. A few 'funny-looking' photos, some wild claims about the Van Allen Belts ... you name it. But never anything substantial, and certainly nothing that measures up to the standard you've established above.

It just seems horribly lazy to me, and it's disappointing that there are those who fall for such simplistic ploys. For myself, I'm not about to buy into the hoax proposition anytime soon, but it'd be refreshing to see a proponent who could at least come up with something engaging.

Kaydeb
2009-May-22, 01:33 PM
In essence: What would you need to believe the opposite of what you currently believe?

From my dear husband, who "isn't sure" about the moon landings (though I think he just loves the idea of conspiracies): He would be convinced if we went to the moon now and found the evidence of the previous landing.

From me: If we go to the moon and find not only no evidence that we were ever there, but clear and compelling evidence that no one has ever been there (though I'm not sure what that would be), then I would be convinced it had been a hoax.

So we're at an impasse for how many years??

:)

Vonstadt
2009-May-26, 04:33 AM
I think for me, I would have to see photos of a known landing site showing ZERO signs of a landing. (i.e no lander stage of the LEM, no footprints..etc)

As well as knowing not only the reasons for such a hoax, but the details involving how they not only staged it so well, but how they also managed to fool the Soviets and anyone else listening to the mission broadcasts.

I think i would need quite a bit before I was able to be swayed away from what I believe are the true facts of a landing. Plus I think I would also like to know how they got so MANY folks to go along with it.

THAT is pure mangement skills that need to be taught! '

You manage all of that, I just might consider changing sides and become a HB'er :)