PDA

View Full Version : please explain



Pages : [1] 2

tardis
2007-Mar-13, 03:00 AM
Re: Apollo Hoax

How is it that the Apollo crews landed, stayed on the moon for days, bringing automobiles and t.v. cameras.
Where did this abundance of power come from? Aren't batteries really heavy?
How about rovers? Is it a sensible to have a 3 mile range in exchange for an extra 1000kg load?

Weren't they concerned about puncturing space suits with all that equipment around??

http://www.bautforum.com/images/smilies/wall.gif
:wall:

Each time; separating from an orbiter, landing, disembarking in 250f/-250f temperatures, entering and exiting the lem multiple times over long hours?
Each time; blasting off the surface in a 'capsule', reconnecting in a geosynchronous orbit.

Nasa accomplished these miracles 6 times in 3 years? What year, 2020??
nope, 1969.

Go!

gwiz
2007-Mar-13, 07:52 PM
Try and do a little research before you expose yourself to possible ridicule with this sort of post. Check what power sources were carried, how much they massed, what the power requirements were, what the range of the rover was, what a geosynchronous orbit is, what the state of the art of aerospace engineering was in 1969, and then see if any of what you posted makes any kind of sense.

stutefish
2007-Mar-13, 08:02 PM
One popular game in the darker depths of the Internet that I frequent is "copy-pasta", where some bored wag simply copies some arbitrary piece of text and posts it as if it were the wag's own original thoughts on the subject.

Copy-pasta goes far beyond simple ignorant parroting of ill-considered ideas. It is a conscious act of unseriously posting something irrelevant simply to see it posted. It may also be a form of trolling.

The OP is such a succinct montage of baseless Apollo hoax claims, that I'm having a hard time imagining it being anything other than copy-pasta.

Rather than addressing the OP's complaints directly, I suspect that the best response would be to provide links to the many thorough discussions already available on these topics, and closing the thread before it reaches a second page.

Sigma_Orionis
2007-Mar-13, 08:08 PM
Re: Apollo Hoax
How is it that the Apollo crews landed, stayed on the moon for days, bringing automobiles and t.v. cameras.
Where did this abundance of power come from? Aren't batteries really heavy?

Two Words: Fuel Cells (http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/attm/nojs/a11.jo.fc.1.html)

R.A.F.
2007-Mar-13, 08:22 PM
I see Sigma covered the fuel cells, so...


How about rovers?

Yes...how about those rovers...they were pretty cool, eh?


Weren't they concerned about puncturing space suits with all that equipment around??

The suits were purposefully made to be sturdy, and they were careful not to puncture them....


Each time; separating from an orbiter, landing, disembarking in 250f/-250f temperatures...

Temperatures of what exactly??


...entering and exiting the lem multiple times over long hours?
Each time; blasting off the surface in a 'capsule'...

What exactly is your "complaint" here??


...reconnecting in a geosynchronous orbit.

Geo=Earth, so your comment is meaningless.


Nasa accomplished these miracles 6 times in 3 years? What year, 2020??
nope, 1969.

Amazing wasn't it. I still marvel at NASA's accomplishments during those "good old days". :)


Go!

Was this post meant to be a chain yank to see if people here would "jump".

Why is it that there seems to be nothing new coming from the HB crowd?? It's always the same ole', same ole'. :)

stutefish
2007-Mar-13, 08:29 PM
Why is it that there seems to be nothing new coming from the HB crowd?? It's always the same ole', same ole'. :)
I'm telling you, there's gotta be at least one CT board out there, where they list all the typical CT arguments in favor of the Apollo Hoax, and encourage each other to copy-pasta them here for laughs.

Fazor
2007-Mar-13, 08:36 PM
Well, all the other CT points are moot anyway, the real proof that the Apollo moon footage was shot beforehand in a soundstage in New Mexico is simple:

The space suits the astronauts had were white. Apollo 11 "landed" on July 16th. Labor Day is in May. And EVERYONE knows you don't wear white after Labor Day. Therefore it had to be filmed BEFORE MAY!

(Yeah I know I'm loony, but this "theory" makes as much sense as any of the other CT ones :) ).

JayUtah
2007-Mar-13, 08:36 PM
Nothing on the lunar surface used fuel cells. The LM and LRV were both battery-powered. The EASEP was solar-powered. The ALSEP was thermoeletrically-powered.

Tardis, the means by which these "miracles" were accomplished are quite well documented and available free from many sources. Handwaving about their alleged impossibility will get you nowhere. If you have specific questions after having informed yourself about how NASA alleges it was done, then perhaps you will find an audience. But I for one am quite tired of teaching Remedial Apollo 101.

Gillianren
2007-Mar-13, 08:39 PM
(Yeah I know I'm loony, but this "theory" makes as much sense as any of the other CT ones :) ).

Except for the minor detail that Labor Day's in September.

Daryl71
2007-Mar-13, 08:45 PM
Re: Apollo Hoax

How is it that the Apollo crews landed, stayed on the moon for days, bringing automobiles and t.v. cameras.
Where did this abundance of power come from? Aren't batteries really heavy?
How about rovers? Is it a sensible to have a 3 mile range in exchange for an extra 1000kg load?

Well, for one thing the Command and Service Modules were powered by fuel cells, and the LM by batteries. How big are batteries supposed to be anyway? They've come a long way since their introduction. Also, the LRV weighed closer to 200 kg and had a range around 25 miles.



Weren't they concerned about puncturing space suits with all that equipment around??

That's probably why they intentionally designed the equipment to have as few sharp metal edges as possible.


Each time; separating from an orbiter, landing, disembarking in 250f/-250f temperatures, entering and exiting the lem multiple times over long hours?

Is there something inherently dangerous about entering and exiting a spacecraft?


Each time; blasting off the surface in a 'capsule', reconnecting in a geosynchronous orbit.

Come on. A geosynchronous orbit is defined as one having the same period as one Earth day. You're just using multisyllabic words in an attempt to impress us.


Nasa accomplished these miracles 6 times in 3 years? What year, 2020??
nope, 1969.

Not miracles. Just 250,000 people working their rear ends off for ten years.


Go!

I just went a few minutes ago.

Sigma_Orionis
2007-Mar-13, 09:38 PM
Nothing on the lunar surface used fuel cells. The LM and LRV were both battery-powered. The EASEP was solar-powered. The ALSEP was thermoeletrically-powered.

Oh well, Jay, one question: do you know why they used batteries on the LM and the LRV? The reason I ASSUMED that they used fuel cells was because they were supposed to be lighter (although I presume they would be bulkier)

jrkeller
2007-Mar-13, 09:40 PM
Weren't they concerned about puncturing space suits with all that equipment around??

That's probably why they intentionally designed the equipment to have as few sharp metal edges as possible.

Actually, that is a requirement. And it is still in use today.

Donnie B.
2007-Mar-13, 09:42 PM
(Yeah I know I'm loony, but this "theory" makes as much sense as any of the other CT ones :) ).
Except for the minor detail that Labor Day's in September.Like he said, makes as much sense as the other CT claims.

Irishman
2007-Mar-13, 09:48 PM
How is it that the Apollo crews landed,

Rocket thrust. Pretty useful.



... stayed on the moon for days,

The Lunar Module - a vehicle explicitly designed to carry food, water, air, and necessary supplies to live on the moon for days.


bringing automobiles and t.v. cameras.

They brought them with that LM thingy I just mentioned. Cool how that works.



Where did this abundance of power come from?

A combination of batteries, solar cells, and the fuel cells in the CSM. Alternately, "engineering".


Aren't batteries really heavy?

Compared to what?


How about rovers? Is it a sensible to have a 3 mile range in exchange for an extra 1000kg load?

What's your source of data? Anyway, compared to what? Is a 3 mile range an improvement over the range without the rover? Does the rover save you labor? Time? How about grocery shopping carts? They have a limited range and no batteries, but they're awfully more sensible for grocery shopping than not having them. What is your evaluation criteria?


Weren't they concerned about puncturing space suits with all that equipment around??

Uh, let me see, we designed the suits. We designed the equipment. We trained the astronauts how to use the equipment while wearing the suits. What's not to understand?

For comparison, aren't SCUBA divers concerned about puncturing their tanks when they carry spear guns?


Each time; separating from an orbiter, landing, disembarking in 250f/-250f temperatures, entering and exiting the lem multiple times over long hours?

What's the question?


Each time; blasting off the surface in a 'capsule', reconnecting in a geosynchronous orbit.

Again, what's the question?

Jeff Root
2007-Mar-13, 09:52 PM
(Yeah I know I'm loony, but this "theory" makes as much sense as
any of the other CT ones ).
Except for the minor detail that Labor Day's in September.
That threw me for a couple of seconds, but then I realized it was
deliberate. Fazor's theory is as consistent with reality as the OP.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Nicolas
2007-Mar-13, 10:52 PM
Just 250,000 people working their rear ends off for ten years.

400.000. But anyway, a huge amount of people.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Mar-13, 10:53 PM
Interesting name, tardis.

Y'know, at one time, it was the aim of Doctor Who to promote education.

These days, Doctor Who in all its forms will "teach" people the most incredible rubbish. You can cut a 10m wide hole all the way to the centre of the Earth with a laser, and it will stay open. The speed of Earth's rotation is 1000 miles per hour - not just at the equator, but also at London's latitude. Black holes suck things in and it is impossible for a planet to orbit one. Geosynchronous orbit is a phrase that can be used for any orbit of any heigh above any planet - not just one 22,300 miles above Earth's equator. Space station designers will stick massive fans just above catwalks, making the catwalks completely unusable. Mars' moon Phobos has mountain ranges and roughly Earth-normal surface gravity.

I think it is important to not bring Doctor Who "learning" to bear on real-world stuff.

Occam
2007-Mar-13, 11:55 PM
Interesting name, tardis.

Y'know, at one time, it was the aim of Doctor Who to promote education.
These days, Doctor Who in all its forms will "teach" people the most incredible rubbish. .

Not really. It's always been entertainment using imaginitive and unusual themes. It's never pretended to be scientifically accurate.

Back to the first post.... Has anyone else noticed that, since the Plait/Rogan debate, there has been an increase in new members asking the same tired HB questions?
A conspiracy?

Serenitude
2007-Mar-14, 12:06 AM
disembarking in 250f/-250f temperatures

I'm soooo waiting for the innevitable "Moonman" question...

Musashi
2007-Mar-14, 12:06 AM
I don't know it feels to me like there is a steady annual flow. We have been having a bit of a drought since, say, last summer.

tardis
2007-Mar-14, 01:51 AM
There is SOOO much visual and common sense evidence that these missions were faked.
I suspect that many aerospace/engineering professionals know this and propagate the lie for national (and personal) security reasons, others I'd imagine, can't consciously acknowledge that they'd been inspired, as children, by lies and faux heroes.
The biggest reason why this outrageous unprecedented hoax worked is that a very large percentage of the population NEVER questions 'authority' or think about the possible failings, short sightedness or manipulative m.o. of authority
I know you've "heard it all" or imagined it all before and I'm just a layman with no real research background on this, etc. but I KNOW what is mind-blowingly improbable and what is not.
I know 'what is showboating' and what is science, Apollo was showboating.
I know what a guy on a rope and pulley looks like.
I know what stop-motion animation looks like.
I know the visual effects of film when it's slowed down.
I know 'what is psychological warfare'
I know what is the darkside of 'the principles of the enlightenment'
I know when I'm talking to a wall.

Just curious, are there any senior member/hoaxer types?

Skyfire
2007-Mar-14, 02:06 AM
There is SOOO much visual and common sense evidence that these missions were faked.

And this proof is..???? You cannot just make such statements here without showing your evidence. That is not science. Please remember this is a SCIENCE board.


I suspect that many aerospace/engineering professionals know this and propagate the lie for national (and personal) security reasons, others I'd imagine, can't consciously acknowledge that they'd been inspired, as children, by lies and faux heroes.

You "suspect that" .... since when has one individual suspecting anything been proof?


The biggest reason why this outrageous unprecedented hoax worked is that a very large percentage of the population NEVER questions 'authority' or think about the possible failings, short sightedness or manipulative m.o. of authority
I know you've "heard it all" or imagined it all before and I'm just a layman with no real research background on this, etc. but I KNOW what is mind-blowingly improbable and what is not.
I know 'what is showboating' and what is science, Apollo was showboating.
I know what a guy on a rope and pulley looks like.
I know what stop-motion animation looks like.
I know the visual effects of film when it's slowed down.
I know 'what is psychological warfare'
I know what is the darkside of 'the principles of the enlightenment'
I know when I'm talking to a wall.

Just curious, are there any senior member/hoaxer types?

You have just stated that you "know" lots of things, so I presume you are basing your knowledge on scientific evidence? Perhaps you would care to present some of it? One piece of it would be a good start.....

We also "know" many things among us, but we don't expect others to accept what we as individuals "know", without showing evidence for it. As I mentioned, this is a science board, and evidence as proof is what is asked for.

ZappBrannigan
2007-Mar-14, 02:25 AM
I know what a guy on a rope and pulley looks like.
I know what stop-motion animation looks like.
I know the visual effects of film when it's slowed down.

Wow. So you work for an effects house? Because that's some pretty specialized knowledge for a layman. Most of the people I know who aren't in the industry, and even a lot who are (actors) can't point out that kind of thing in your average movie or tv show.

Occam
2007-Mar-14, 02:26 AM
I know what a troll is
I know what ignorance is
I know what foolishness is

I can also easily recognise someone who is blindly spouting the nonsense of others in a futile attempt to appear smart and more knowledgeable than "establishment sheeple"

It is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. That being so, Tardis, you are quite deadly.

stutefish
2007-Mar-14, 02:27 AM
There is SOOO much visual and common sense evidence that these missions were faked.
I suspect that many aerospace/engineering professionals know this and propagate the lie for national (and personal) security reasons, others I'd imagine, can't consciously acknowledge that they'd been inspired, as children, by lies and faux heroes.
The biggest reason why this outrageous unprecedented hoax worked is that a very large percentage of the population NEVER questions 'authority' or think about the possible failings, short sightedness or manipulative m.o. of authority
I know you've "heard it all" or imagined it all before and I'm just a layman with no real research background on this, etc. but I KNOW what is mind-blowingly improbable and what is not.
I know 'what is showboating' and what is science, Apollo was showboating.
I know what a guy on a rope and pulley looks like.
I know what stop-motion animation looks like.
I know the visual effects of film when it's slowed down.
I know 'what is psychological warfare'
I know what is the darkside of 'the principles of the enlightenment'
I know when I'm talking to a wall.

Just curious, are there any senior member/hoaxer types?

There's a lot of senior members posting "against the mainstream" theories in the ATM section of this board. Not very many Apollo Hoaxers among the senior members, though, mostly because it's really hard to refute the evidence in favor of the Apollo Program being real.

It's always been a dream of mine that some expert in special effects would come here and give a detailed technical explanation of the 1960s-era special effects that would have been used to create an Apollo Hoax. You say that you "know what a guy on a rope and pulley looks like". Are you the special effects expert of my dreams? That would be pretty awsome. The only other effects expert on this board that I know of is a theatrical effects expert, and he's pretty certain there weren't any special effects technologies available then that could fake the Apollo missions. You'll have to bring out your very best to refute his claims.

Also, I've served in a Psychological Operations Group, as an Intel Analyst alongside actual military-trained Pychological Operations Specialists, planning and practicing Psychological Warfare. I hope you have at least that much professional experience, if you're going to keep claiming you know what Psychological Warfare is.

And before I forget: I apologize for not welcoming you to the board sooner. Welcome, tardis! I apologize for doubting you earlier. I sincerely hope that you'll defend your claims with as much evidence and reason as you have passion. May the truth be with you.

tardis
2007-Mar-14, 02:36 AM
we don't expect others to accept what we as individuals "know", without showing evidence for it.

How can "individual" science researcher have answers for every aspect of 'hoax theories' if:
-They weren't there.
-They read something written by someone else.
-They only research in a minute sector of a science field.

Philosophically speaking, the only people who really know If astronauts walked on the moon are the astronauts. Even then someone or thing could have hoaxed on them too. Aliens??

Daryl71
2007-Mar-14, 02:39 AM
I know you've "heard it all" or imagined it all before and I'm just a layman with no real research background on this, etc. but I KNOW what is mind-blowingly improbable and what is not.
I know 'what is showboating' and what is science, Apollo was showboating.
I know what a guy on a rope and pulley looks like.
I know what stop-motion animation looks like.
I know the visual effects of film when it's slowed down.
I know 'what is psychological warfare'
I know what is the darkside of 'the principles of the enlightenment'
I know when I'm talking to a wall.


Yeah, you seem to know a lot, but do you know how to make an omelet?

stutefish
2007-Mar-14, 02:44 AM
Tardis, have you seen any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by the astronauts, that they were there?

Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by the engineers, that they built, tested, and supervised the operations of working Apollo hardware?

Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by the NASA administrators, that they specified, supervised, and otherwise administered a real project that really put people on the moon.

Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by professional and amateur radio operators around the world, that they located and tracked the Apollo spacecraft to, on, and from the Moon?

Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by many hundreds (thousands?) of geologists around the world, that the samples they received from NASA are genuine Moon rocks, unlike anything ever seen on Earth?

In a world where philosophy insists that we can never really know the truth, we must trust to our senses, the evidence available to us, and the claims of people who have proven themselves to be trustworthy and of good character.

Please, set the unanswerable philosophical questions aside for a moment, and discuss with us the evidence that troubles you.

cjl
2007-Mar-14, 02:44 AM
They don't have to be there, and they aren't basing their belief of the landings simply on "something written by somebody else". There are mountains of evidence that we landed on the moon, from the photographs, to the rockets (including the ones that are still on display), to the vast quantities of samples that could not have been formed on earth, there is far too much evidence to create a plausible scenario that includes anything but an actual landing on the moon.

Now, how about some evidence, rather than just accusations?

stutefish
2007-Mar-14, 02:44 AM
mis-post

DogsHead
2007-Mar-14, 02:47 AM
You do really need to check out some of the other threads on this subject (if only on this forum) before comments like this:
How can "individual" science researcher have answers for every aspect of 'hoax theories' if:
-They weren't there.
-They read something written by someone else.
-They only research in a minute sector of a science field.

You are likely to come a cropper fairly quickly around here if you don't.

tardis
2007-Mar-14, 03:01 AM
"Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by the engineers, that they built, tested, and supervised the operations of working Apollo hardware?"

No. I bet they were VERY relieved when the astronauts came back alive.
Good people.

"Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by the NASA administrators, that they specified, supervised, and otherwise administered a real project that really put people on the moon."

No, except the putting on of people on the moon.

Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by professional and amateur radio operators around the world, that they located and tracked the Apollo spacecraft to, on, and from the Moon?

Unfortunately, I have no evidence here but I heard that after Apollo 11 there was a satellite launched to orbit the moon which sent telemetric data.

Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by many hundreds (thousands?) of geologists around the world, that the samples they received from NASA are genuine Moon rocks, unlike anything ever seen on Earth?

No, although I think they could be unique meteorites or may have been retrieved by an automated system, simply because of the tremendous human risk involved in retrieving rocks for science.

VPCCD
2007-Mar-14, 03:04 AM
"Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by the engineers, that they built, tested, and supervised the operations of working Apollo hardware?"

No. I bet they were VERY relieved when the astronauts came back alive.
Good people.

"Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by the NASA administrators, that they specified, supervised, and otherwise administered a real project that really put people on the moon."

No, except the putting on of people on the moon.

Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by professional and amateur radio operators around the world, that they located and tracked the Apollo spacecraft to, on, and from the Moon?

Unfortunately, I have no evidence here but I heard that after Apollo 11 there was a satellite launched to orbit the moon which sent telemetric data.

Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by many hundreds (thousands?) of geologists around the world, that the samples they received from NASA are genuine Moon rocks, unlike anything ever seen on Earth?

No, although I think they could be unique meteorites or may have been retrieved by an automated system, simply because of the tremendous human risk involved in retrieving rocks for science.

So if you have no evidence that they were faked, why do you belive that they were?

ZappBrannigan
2007-Mar-14, 03:11 AM
It's always been a dream of mine that some expert in special effects would come here and give a detailed technical explanation of the 1960s-era special effects that would have been used to create an Apollo Hoax.
While I'm no expert, I have grafted a Wal-Mart sign on top of a city ship from Independence Day, I've made the Disney Hall jump up on wheels and drive away, and I've made a giant logo roll down Hollywood Boulevard.

Your comment got me thinking. "2001" would have to be considered as the greatest special effects achievement of the time. According to the Wikipedia article for "2001," principal photography began in December of 1965. The film was released 16 months behind schedule in April 1968. That's 28 months, right? So 28 months to produce 2 hours and 40 minutes of finished film.

Please correct any mistakes I'm bound to make below.

Okay, I do not have an exact figure regarding how much film and tv footage was shot over the course of the program. Let's assume that nothing could leave Earth orbit, so anything further out would have to be faked. That's 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Well, we can get a few figures from Spacecraft Films. Their Apollo 8 and 11 DVD's have "10 hours of footage." Let's assume half is preparation, etc. That's 5 hours each. When we jump to their Apollo 15 set, it's got "21 hours of footage." Let's chop that in half, just for kicks, and round down, so 10 hours. So let's go with 5 hours of faked footage for each mission up to 14, then 10 hours for 15 through 17, when the stays were longer. That's 60 hours of faked footage that has to look good enough until at least the late '90's, when people will all posses intimate knowledge of aerospace engineering, radiation in space, and masterful photographic interpretation skills.

Kubrick's 160 minutes divided by 28 months equals 5.7 minutes of film per month. Let's say the ultra-efficient Illuminati effects wizzes got that up to 6 minutes per month. To fake Apollo's 60 hours of footage would take 50 years. Okay, but they were able to cut corners by using the same backgrounds and the same LM sometimes. Fine. Call it 30 years. That must have been one feat of planning.

Peter B
2007-Mar-14, 03:11 AM
No. I bet they were VERY relieved when the astronauts came back alive. Good people.

I bet they were very happy to come back alive too!

But that's not evidence that they didn't go.


Unfortunately, I have no evidence here but I heard that after Apollo 11 there was a satellite launched to orbit the moon which sent telemetric data.

Do you have a reference for that?


I think they could be unique meteorites or may have been retrieved by an automated system, simply because of the tremendous human risk involved in retrieving rocks for science.

Remember, "could have" and "may have" aren't the same as "did".

It would be a very unusual meteorite which was the consistency of compressed powder, or the shape of a core sample!

And if the samples were retrieved by an automated system, would you care to provide evidence of such?

Another question I'd like to know the answer to is this: According to you, what exactly was the show-stopper? What prevented Apollo from being done? Was it a human problem (like, they couldn't develop the technology) or was it an environmental problem (like, the radiation would kill the astronauts)?

Cheers

Swift
2007-Mar-14, 03:11 AM
I'm just going to respond to this little bit.

<snip>
The biggest reason why this outrageous unprecedented hoax worked is that a very large percentage of the population NEVER questions 'authority' or think about the possible failings, short sightedness or manipulative m.o. of authority

Really? Then how did things like Watergate, Iran-Contra, all of Bill Clinton's scandals, and dozens of other conspiracies and cover-ups get reported in just the last few decades? I grew up in the 1960s, when Apollo was going on, and there was an entire generation that not only questioned authority but many actively opposed it. Ever hear of the Vietman War and protests against it? Ever hear of the Civil Rights Movement, I believe they questioned and opposed authority too?

So had did "Authority" cover up fake moon landings, with hundreds of investigative reporters who to this day would pay top dollar for any of the thousands of people that must have been involved in this cover-up to spill the beans? Please be specific in your answers.

Oh, and by the way Tardis, Welcome to BAUT. I advise that you read the rules and the FAQs. You are expected to answer all of our questions.

Daryl71
2007-Mar-14, 03:19 AM
No, although I think they could be unique meteorites or may have been retrieved by an automated system, simply because of the tremendous human risk involved in retrieving rocks for science.

Do you have any idea what would be required to retrieve 800 pounds of unique samples from the Moon using automated sample return missions in complete secrecy? Considering that the Russians only managed to bring back 230 grams of random samples from their automated missions, what would it take to bring back 1,400 times that amount?

Assuming that each American sample-return probe can only bring back 40 grams of samples (HBs like to flaunt the inferiority of American hardware). Suppose that each probe weighs nine tons (the Russian Lunkohod weighed six tons). The Saturn V could carry 52 tons on a trans-lunar trajectory, and assuming that each probe has a de-orbit stage attached, can carry about four of these probes. Each of these probes would have to be able to extract six-foot long core samples and be able to locate unique rocks.

Assuming 100% hardware reliability, each launch would return about 160 grams of samples. You'd need 2,370 launches to return 836 pounds of rocks. Unfortunately, hoax believers also think that American rockets explode constantly, so assuming that 60% of the rockets explode in the first five minutes, you'd need 5,925 launches. About 60% of the probes land safely, but of these, about 60% either fail to return to Earth, miss it completely, or burn up in the atmosphere.

Okay, thats 20,737 Saturn V launches required to return the same amount of samples that Apollo did.

According to http://www.astronautix.com, each Saturn V booster and launch cost about $431 million in 1967 dollars. This amounts to $8,937,647,000,000 for 20,737 launches, more than the current United States GDP. Each launch would have to be carried out in absolute secrecy, unknown to all except an elite inner circle. This averages to one launch every 121 minutes between 1967 and 1972.

It would seem the automated mission theory is a little far-fetched.

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-14, 03:40 AM
I see hand waving.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Mar-14, 03:43 AM
I see hand waving.
that is like going to star trek convention and predicting someone dressed as a klingon.:D

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 03:46 AM
Oh well, Jay, one question: do you know why they used batteries on the LM and the LRV?

Simplicity. Fuel cells require fuel, control systems, plumbing, heat rejection, etc. Batteries require only a place to bolt them.

cjl
2007-Mar-14, 03:55 AM
Why not more solar?

It was readily available...

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 03:55 AM
There is SOOO much visual...

Pretending to be a "photo analyst" and ignoring the basic principles of photography does not create visual evidence.

...and common sense evidence that these missions were faked.

"Common sense" is a euphemism for uninformed belief. The known failure of common sense to predict reality is why science and engineering were invented.

I suspect that many aerospace/engineering professionals know this and propagate the lie...

You're calling me personally a liar. You just crossed a line.

The biggest reason why this outrageous unprecedented hoax worked is that a very large percentage of the population NEVER questions 'authority'...

Did you question all the ignorant hoax authors you read? Those people who set themselves up as authorities, collected your money, then faded away.

...manipulative m.o. of authority

What did you do to ensure you weren't being manipulated by the hoax authors whose material you unquestioningly repeat?

It's hilarious when people pontificate about how discriminating they are and how others are all just manipulated sheep. Then we find out they've just decided ahead of time whom to believe and whom to disbelieve.

I KNOW what is mind-blowingly improbable and what is not.

We'll just see. You've called me a liar. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? We'll see how much you really know about space engineering.

I know...

Gratuitously, flagrantly begging the question.

I know when I'm talking to a wall.

Consider that people don't take your word for it because you don't make a convincing case, not because they're entrenched.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 03:56 AM
It was readily available...

Two weeks of darkness every month is not readily available.

stutefish
2007-Mar-14, 04:12 AM
It was readily available...

Two weeks of darkness every month is not readily available.
Yes, but didn't they land on the moon during the morning of the lunar day, with sunlight readily available the whole time they were on the surface?

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 04:13 AM
No. I bet they were VERY relieved when the astronauts came back alive.

Irrelevant. Engineers are quite used to having thousands upon thousands of people put lives in their hands. Why would they be so concerned over three lives when they are used to millions of air travelers and bridge traversers every year?

Good that you admit you have no evidence of incompetence or malfeasance on the part of the engineers, even though you've brazenly called them all liars. Do you concede that Apollo was a well-engineered project?

No, except the putting on of people on the moon.

Sheer disbelief is not proof.

Unfortunately, I have no evidence here...

We do. Can you explain it? Remember, you're the one calling me and my colleagues liars. Don't you think I'm entitled to evidence more substantial than "I know you're lying."

...but I heard that after Apollo 11 there was a satellite launched to orbit the moon which sent telemetric data.

First, where's your evidence for such a satellite?

Second, why would that work? Do you know anything about the limitations imposed by orbital mechanics?

No, although I think they could be unique meteorites...

Why do you think geologists would be fooled by meteorites? They won't suddenly turn into doofuses just to make your belief seem more real.

...or may have been retrieved by an automated system

Not possible; not unless you can show evidence for the launches every 2-3 days for 4 years that would have been required to obtain more than 800 pounds of surface samples using then-current technology. Do you have any evidence?

...simply because of the tremendous human risk involved in retrieving rocks for science.

Irrelevant. Qualified pilots lined up in droves to take that risk. More people die every year fishing for crab in Alaska than ever died getting Moon rocks.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 04:18 AM
Yes, but didn't they land on the moon during the morning of the lunar day...

Yes, I was thinking specifically of the ALSEP. Sorry.

Solar panels are also large and unwieldy as well as delicate. They also have to be kept aligned with the sun for maximum efficiency. Batteries are much simpler power sources for short-duration missions.

stutefish
2007-Mar-14, 04:48 AM
D'oh! I completely forgot about the ALSEPs!

Serenitude
2007-Mar-14, 05:14 AM
Just to remind you, Tardis, you came to our board voluntarily, and that means you agree to abide by our rules. One of those rules is that you are absolutely required to answer all direct questions posed to you. "I don't know" is a valid answer. I will be asking questions in this post that I demand direct, pertinent, and timely answers to.


There is SOOO much visual and common sense evidence that these missions were faked.

1. Please provide 5 examples.


I suspect that many aerospace/engineering professionals know this and propagate the lie for national (and personal) security reasons, others I'd imagine, can't consciously acknowledge that they'd been inspired, as children, by lies and faux heroes.

2a. Why do you "suspect" this?
2b. Provide evidence that supports your suspicions.



The biggest reason why this outrageous unprecedented hoax worked is that a very large percentage of the population NEVER questions 'authority'

3. Please demonstrate that this is a factual statement and not woo-woo psuedo-psychology. Relevant examples, with cites. And please explain why you insinuate that none of us question authority. Also, please explain why this is not a "for those that have eyes to see" logical fallacy.

or think about the possible failings, short sightedness or manipulative m.o. of authority

4. Please state clearly what the possible failings, shortsightedness, and manipulative modus operandi of "authority" that members here may never have considered. Next, please explain why this is relevant. Then, please provide examples in the NASA Apollo missions.


I know you've "heard it all" or imagined it all before

I must admit that so far, you bring utterly nothing to the table.


and I'm just a layman with no real research background on this, etc.

Which of course somehow nevertheless imparts you credentials to declare Apollo a hoax while managing to have almost no factual knowledge to compliment your complete lack of understanding of the science involved.


but I KNOW what is mind-blowingly improbable and what is not.

5. Explain why Apollo was "mind-blowingly" improbable to have happened.


I know 'what is showboating' and what is science, Apollo was showboating.

6. Demonstrate your grasp of science. Define showboating and provide relevant examples. Then, present a logical, factual, and fallacy-free argument demonstrating the Apollo program to be "showboating", not based on science.

I know what a guy on a rope and pulley looks like.

7. Please, in your own words (not cut'n'paste from a nutter site) what you have observed in the Apollo footage that leads you to this conclusion.


I know what stop-motion animation looks like.

8. Please provide a credible example of stop-motion animation in Apollo footage.


I know the visual effects of film when it's slowed down.

9. Please provide a credible example of Apollo footage shot at normal speed and then slowed down. Again, not from a nutter website. Video, with your own commentary.


I know 'what is psychological warfare'

Available on the Wiki in basic form. 10. Please demonstrate the relevance to the Apollo missions.


I know what is the darkside of 'the principles of the enlightenment'

Actually, don't do anything with this. It's already absurd as written, and needs no further commentary in ignorance.


I know when I'm talking to a wall.

If you are reffering to the fact that hysterical, unsubstantiated ranting based on long-debunked arguments posed by Apollo hoax nutters, without presenting anything new or demonstrating a minute willingness to learn, is going to get you nowhere here, you are likely correct.

Tardis, I have posed 10 direct questions to you. You are required, by forum rules, to answer them directly and in a timely manner.

Since you are new, I have put in bold type all of the questions that I require answers to. Best of luck.

cjl
2007-Mar-14, 05:58 AM
Yes, but didn't they land on the moon during the morning of the lunar day...

Yes, I was thinking specifically of the ALSEP. Sorry.

Solar panels are also large and unwieldy as well as delicate. They also have to be kept aligned with the sun for maximum efficiency. Batteries are much simpler power sources for short-duration missions.
I completely forgot about those :doh:

I would have expected the solar panels to be lighter than the needed batteries, but now that I think about it, it does make sense...

Back to the regularly scheduled thread, nothing to see here :whistle:

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 06:18 AM
I completely forgot about those :doh:

Ironic: you forgot about them, and I forgot about everything except them.

The LM spent half its lunar orbit in the dark. You'd need batteries to power it during that part of its orbit anyway.

I would have expected the solar panels to be lighter than the needed batteries

Possibly. Remember that most solar arrays are meant for orbital microgravity and consequently need little structure to keep them extended and aligned. Had similar-sized solar arrays been attached to the LM and LRV, they would have needed more supporting structure when on the lunar surface, therefore heavier assemblies. You'd have to actually run numbers to see which is heavier.

But in terms of systemic complexity, batteries win easily. The LM had to be kept as simple as possible in order to reduce the risk of critical component failure. The electrical system of any spacecraft is considered highly critical and is usually engineered as robustly as possible within mission constraints. Since the LM and LRV each had a service lifetime of only a few days, batteries were the obvious choice.

Serenitude
2007-Mar-14, 06:24 AM
BTW: Tardis, while you're working on these answers to our questions (not just mine, note: others have also asked questions they expect answered), I would be remiss without providing you my two favorite resources for intelligent Apollo Hoax investigation. Note that both of these sites have been exhaustingly peer-reviewed by people from all parts of the world, and have been painstakingly found to be valid ;) (IE, no evil American conspiracy at work...)

The first site is the BA's own commentary on the Fox program that launched a thousand hoax conspiracies. I note that while you did not mention the program, he uses very plain, non-layman language and goes to great lengths to make the evidence very accessable:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#disclaimer

After you've reviewed the basics, I highly recommend you peruse JayUtah's Clavius site. It will go into more detail and minutia than the BA's, and there's likely not a sensible question about the Apollo Hoax that isn't answered there, in very great detail:

www.clavius.org

Svector
2007-Mar-14, 06:39 AM
Philosophically speaking, the only people who really know If astronauts walked on the moon are the astronauts.

Which is why the rest of us must reach our own conclusions about Apollo by gathering evidence through credible sources, and testing that evidence with sound, scientifically valid methodologies.

So far, not a single official NASA position regarding the Apollo program has been successfully discredited by a conspiracist. Conversely, 100% of conspiracy theories cooked up about Apollo have been successfully and thoroughly debunked by the scientific community. The hoax theories are typically simple misinterpretations of valid NASA data, by people with little or no experience in the specialized fields surrounding the program. Often they even lack a grasp of basic scientific/photographic principles. Occasionally, hoax theories are complete deceptions, manufactured out of whole cloth by greedy hucksters trying to sell DVDs or books.

So if you're seeking truth, logically you have to side with the evidence. All the solid evidence is on the NASA side of the fence. Not a shred of it lies on the CT side. The HB's think they have "evidence", but in actuality it's all misinformation and misunderstanding.

I'm curious - what do you consider the strongest bit of "evidence" to support an Apollo hoax?


.

Svector
2007-Mar-14, 06:48 AM
To fake Apollo's 60 hours of footage would take 50 years. Okay, but they were able to cut corners by using the same backgrounds and the same LM sometimes. Fine. Call it 30 years. That must have been one feat of planning.

I'll save tardis the trouble of responding.

The HB catch-all for your analysis is "with $130 billion budget, you can achieve anything".

Of course when you point out that there is a documented paper trail showing how that money was paid to subcontractors who actually built the hardware they were contracted to build, and that NASA wouldn't have had much money left over to build Neverland out in the desert, they tend to get quiet.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 07:12 AM
The HB catch-all for your analysis is "with $130 billion budget, you can achieve anything".

Except, of course, go to the Moon. Odd how NASA becomes so darned omnipotent when faking things.

pzkpfw
2007-Mar-14, 07:50 AM
But in terms of systemic complexity, batteries win easily. The LM had to be kept as simple as possible in order to reduce the risk of critical component failure.

I know it was after Apollo, but the Skylab launch incident seems worth mentioning. When some of the - fragile - solar panels got torn off (along with insulation) the thing was nearly a total loss.

Of course, Skylab couldn't have been run long term on batteries, so needed the panels. Apollo didn't have that issue.

Svector
2007-Mar-14, 08:08 AM
The HB catch-all for your analysis is "with $130 billion budget, you can achieve anything".

Except, of course, go to the Moon. Odd how NASA becomes so darned omnipotent when faking things.

I wonder if any of them ever stop to think that by advancing the hoax myth, they're actually giving NASA credit for something much more technologically impressive than a moon landing.

The sheer brainpower, man-hours and good fortune needed to put boots on the moon would pale in comparison to the requirements of executing a flawless hoax of the event. I mean, they're crediting NASA with capabilities and know-how that even the most enthusiastic NASA supporter would freely admit they don't have.

Sort of ironic that in order to denounce NASA as an evil entity, the HB's first have to bestow God-like powers upon them.


:p

Nicolas
2007-Mar-14, 08:57 AM
I suspect that many aerospace/engineering professionals know this and propagate the lie for national (and personal) security reasons, others I'd imagine, can't consciously acknowledge that they'd been inspired, as children, by lies and faux heroes.

Well here's an aerospace engineer who was not around during the missions so wasn't inspired as a kid by te cultus surrounding the apollo astronauts, has no national or other link to NASA/USA, has studied apollo quite a bit, and hasn't seen any good evidence against the landings. It's not about belief, it's about facts.


No, although I think they could be unique meteorites or may have been retrieved by an automated system, simply because of the tremendous human risk involved in retrieving rocks for science.
These astronauts were fighter pilots, whose life was risked on a daily basis for things sometimes quite a bit less important than going to the moon. A good deal of these astronauts were test pilots, who flew dangerous craft on a daily basis. These astronauts were Korea veterans, who'd otherwise have gone to Vietnam. They knew what risk was. And retrieving the rocks wasn't the purpose of Apollo. The purpose of Apollo 11 was "to put men on the moon and return them safely". Period. Apollo was all about putting men on the moon, to do things that were never done before, to make the post 60's different than before, to show the supremacy of open society over communism, etcetc.


Philosophically speaking, the only people who really know If astronauts walked on the moon are the astronauts.
And one of them told me yesterday that he had indeed been on the moon. With loads of tiny little details.


The mainstream idea is that men have gone to the moon. Now will you show evidence for your claims to the contrary or not? If not, that makes it very easy as this board has an ignore function. If you will present evidence, I and others (including you) willl be happy to hold it in the light of scientific scrutiny, and in the end we will get closer to the truth that way.

Occam
2007-Mar-14, 09:16 AM
Nicolas, you have my absolute envy. I don't know how you managed it but to have spent time speaking with Buzz Aldrin would have fulfilled a 40 year old ambition of mine. I am so envious I could spit - but in a good way :D

ineluki
2007-Mar-14, 09:32 AM
I wonder if any of them ever stop to think
:p

Why think when you can handwave?

Nicolas
2007-Mar-14, 10:02 AM
Nicolas, you have my absolute envy. I don't know how you managed it but to have spent time speaking with Buzz Aldrin would have fulfilled a 40 year old ambition of mine. I am so envious I could spit - but in a good way :D

Just to make things clear: it wasn't a private conversation between me and him. I'd never be able to manage that :). It was a lecture by Dr Aldrin which I attended. Reading again what I typed, I put it a bit confusing. "he told me" should be read as "he told in a lecture which I attended". I don't know how to put that short and clear in English. But once again to make it clear: it wasn't just me, there were hundreds of other people listening to Dr Aldrin and asking him questions a well. In fact there were so many people that only a very small percentage of them could ask a question, but luckily these questions were interesting for all of us.

So not a one on one conversation, indeed one way traffic rather than a conversation, but still really really cool to have seen the man and to have listened to what he had to say to us.

WHarris
2007-Mar-14, 12:21 PM
The biggest reason why this outrageous unprecedented hoax worked is that a very large percentage of the population NEVER questions 'authority' or think about the possible failings, short sightedness or manipulative m.o. of authority


During the 60s?!?

The 60s (and the 70s) were all about "questioning authority".

Sigma_Orionis
2007-Mar-14, 12:40 PM
Oh well, Jay, one question: do you know why they used batteries on the LM and the LRV?

Simplicity. Fuel cells require fuel, control systems, plumbing, heat rejection, etc. Batteries require only a place to bolt them.

Thanks a lot for the info Jay, in hindsight it makes sense to use batteries. I suppose that the trade-off between Fuel Cells vs Batteries wasn't pretty good in those particular cases.

Reminder to myself: NEVER "play engineer" when there is one around :D

Nicolas
2007-Mar-14, 12:51 PM
During the 60s?!?

The 60s (and the 70s) were all about "questioning authority".

LOL, indeed.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Mar-14, 12:57 PM
Not really. It's always been entertainment using imaginitive and unusual themes. It's never pretended to be scientifically accurate.
Don't forget, when it first started, education was part of its purpose - and of course Verity Lambert was apparently livid when the very second serial featured bug eyed monsters! Many of the early stories lived up to the original intention, notably the historicals such as Marco Polo and The Aztecs.

My main beef is with those who imply or even outright state that entertainment and good science are mutually exclusive (which is not what I think you are doing). And some fans do confuse fantasy with reality. Last year, when I complained about the terrible black hole physics in The Impossible Planet, one fan said (quoting from memory), "The Doctor is from an advanced civilisation, so I believe him rather than you."

In the case of tardis, I think s/he is trying to follow the Doctor's lead in challenging authority. The problem is, tardis doesn't seem to understand his or her own challenge, and s/he certainly doesn't seem to understand that people do challenge authority - and these people are usually better qualified to do so.

Jeff Root
2007-Mar-14, 01:06 PM
I was alone with Aldrin for a couple of minutes. All I asked him was
"Am I in the right place?"

At this point I should mention that Aldrin's PhD was in celestial
mechanics, and more specifically, he was a specialist in navigation.
That's what he worked on as an astronaut, helping to develop the
tools and techniques for navigating in Space.

So the question I asked Buzz was essentially a navigation question:
"Am I in the right place?" He answered "Yes."

No, I wasn't in the right place. I was supposed to be a couple of
rooms away from where we were. He probably thought I was asking
if I was in the right building.

The next evening, I think it was, someone wanted a photo of Buzz
for a magazine promo, and wanted a prop in the photo which was
a "Cosmic Pictionary" game I had slapped together. So I sat at a
table pretending to play the game with Buzz who was in turn
pretending to be distracted from the game by a cell phone call,
which is what he was promoting. The photo did run, but I don't
recall what magazine it was (something very arcane) or whether
I got a copy of it. That took place in Huntsville, Alabama in 1993.

-- Jeff. in Minneapolis

Jim
2007-Mar-14, 01:07 PM
First, welcome to the BAUT, tardis.


I suspect that many aerospace/engineering professionals know this and propagate the lie for national (and personal) security reasons, others I'd imagine, can't consciously acknowledge that they'd been inspired, as children, by lies and faux heroes.

I am one of those engineering professionals whom you have accused of either lying or being too gullible to live. I sincerely hope you can provide proof of either of these claims. Otherwise, a quick retraction would be a good move on your part.


The biggest reason why this outrageous unprecedented hoax worked is that a very large percentage of the population NEVER questions 'authority' or think about the possible failings, short sightedness or manipulative m.o. of authority

I'm guessing you are under 30, certainly young enough that you have no recollection of the last half of the 1960s.

One claim made by many Apollo HBs is that the lunar mission was faked to take the pressure off the government from the Viet Nam war protestors. Y'know, those hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who were questioning the authority of the governemnt every day in the streets.

Yet, you think those same people would accept Apollo w/o question.


I know you've "heard it all" or imagined it all before and I'm just a layman with no real research background on this, etc. but I KNOW what is mind-blowingly improbable and what is not.

As has been said before, common sense will get you in trouble when you start using it on technical issues in which you have no training and have done no research. You'd be surprised at the things that once seemed "mind-blowingly improbable" that are real.

Such as:
Trains could never travel more than 30mph; the air would be going by so fast the passengers couldn't breath.
Powered flight was an impossibility; the engines would be too heavy.
Buildings could never be more than a few stories high; they'd collapse under their own weight or be blown down.


Just curious, are there any senior member/hoaxer types?

I doubt it. They find the atmosphere here is not conducive to long term hoax belief... too much fact and evidence for that. They either realize they were wrong - and stop being HBs - or they leave to protect their (flawed) belief systems.

Fazor
2007-Mar-14, 01:36 PM
Except for the minor detail that Labor Day's in September.

Only 'caus NASA and the Guberment conspired to change it so that my evidence of the hoax couldn't be used. Didn't think that would stop me, did you? See, I have the internet, thus I'm smarter than NASA.

Nicolas
2007-Mar-14, 02:00 PM
I was alone with Aldrin for a couple of minutes. All I asked him was
"Am I in the right place?"

At this point I should mention that Aldrin's PhD was in celestial
mechanics, and more specifically, he was a specialist in navigation.
That's what he worked on as an astronaut, helping to develop the
tools and techniques for navigating in Space.

So the question I asked Buzz was essentially a navigation question:
"Am I in the right place?" He answered "Yes."

No, I wasn't in the right place. I was supposed to be a couple of
rooms away from where we were. He probably thought I was asking
if I was in the right building.

The next evening, I think it was, someone wanted a photo of Buzz
for a magazine promo, and wanted a prop in the photo which was
a "Cosmic Pictionary" game I had slapped together. So I sat at a
table pretending to play the game with Buzz who was in turn
pretending to be distracted from the game by a cell phone call,
which is what he was promoting. The photo did run, but I don't
recall what magazine it was (something very arcane) or whether
I got a copy of it. That took place in Huntsville, Alabama in 1993.

-- Jeff. in Minneapolis

C-O-O-L :)

I loved the fake advertising for Omega watches Aldrin put in his speech. You know, mentioning "Omega" just a bit too much and way too obvious. But you could tell he wasn't being paid to do that now -or at least didn't take it too seriously, especially the remark (when pointing at a picture of him on the moon in his spacesuit):

"and somewhere under all this is the Omega watch. (... :)) Now there's nothing as useless as knowing what time it is in Texas when you're on the moon" :lol:

The watch has been worn on top of pressure suits, but on the moon it wasn't, so that makes it double useless (it shows how late it is in a place you're currently not, and even then you still can't read it :)). Of course, inside the cabin during Apollo 13, it turned out to be very useful.

btw Aldrin pointed at the wrong arm when he showed where the watch was under the suit. HOAX! ;) (never mind a simple mistake, not even paying attention to which arm he was pointing, or being confused by the mirror/photo flip effect)

sts60
2007-Mar-14, 04:01 PM
How is it that the Apollo crews landed, stayed on the moon for days, bringing automobiles and t.v. cameras.
Where did this abundance of power come from? Aren't batteries really heavy?

Batteries are heavy. They are also very reliable and much simpler than fuel cells, making them ideal for short (up to several days) use. The silver-zinc primary batteries used on the Apollo LM (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730064704_1973064704.pdf) and on the rover (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRV_OpsNAS8-25145.pdf) have been used in a multitude of other space projects, including some on which I've worked, and had been well proven during Mercury and Gemini.

Mass of the batteries was just one of the factors involved in the power system trade studies, and was considered along with all the other mass numbers in mission design. Do you have a specific objection, other than "really heavy"?

How about rovers? Is it a sensible to have a 3 mile range in exchange for an extra 1000kg load?

Yes; it made possible a significant amount of scientific discovery. And the LRV had a GVW of 1500 lbs, including the astronauts.

Weren't they concerned about puncturing space suits with all that equipment around??

Perhaps they thought about that beforehand?

Have you ever watched astronauts do a sharp-edge inspection? I have. NASA is very careful about minimizing sharp and pointy things in places where astronauts will go. But, of course, the spacesuits were also designed to be pretty tough (you can read about them here (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730064704_1973064704.pdf).

Each time; separating from an orbiter, landing,

Do you have a specific objection to this?

disembarking in 250f/-250f temperatures,

Which temperatures? Where? And why specifically were temperatures an insurmountable problem? Have you studied any of the means used to control temperatures on Apollo, or more generally any of the means used in spaceflight?

entering and exiting the lem multiple times over long hours?

LM, not "lem". But do you have a specific objection to entering and exiting the vehicle?

Each time; blasting off the surface in a 'capsule',

A vehicle designed for the maximum in redundancy and reliability. Do you have a specific objection?

reconnecting in a geosynchronous orbit.

Not "geosynchronous". That refers to a specific type of orbit around the Earth.

Nasa accomplished these miracles 6 times in 3 years? What year, 2020??
nope, 1969.

Why specifically do you claim them as "miracles", rather than sound engineering? And it was about 3-1/2 years.

Without specific claims as to why something was unfeasible, there's nothing to discuss; it's just handwaving.

sts60
2007-Mar-14, 04:17 PM
There is SOOO much visual and common sense evidence that these missions were faked.

Feel free to discuss any specific examples.

I suspect that many aerospace/engineering professionals know this and propagate the lie for national (and personal) security reasons,

I am an aerospace engineer. Feel free to explain exactly what evidence you have for this claim. Or retract it.

others I'd imagine,

Your imagination is not evidence.

can't consciously acknowledge that they'd been inspired, as children, by lies and faux heroes.

I have worked with Apollo engineers and Apollo-era astronauts. I have had first-hand opportunity to evaluate their competence and integrity. Your handwaving character smear is rebutted by my personal experience. Do you have any evidence to back it up? If not, then retract it.

The biggest reason why this outrageous unprecedented hoax worked is that a very large percentage of the population NEVER questions 'authority' or think about the possible failings, short sightedness or manipulative m.o. of authority

The international engineering and scientific community overwhelmingly accepts the reality of Apollo. Many of the techniques and technologies and science developed during the effort are standard practice in today's space programs.

I know you've "heard it all" or imagined it all before

I've heard just about every standard CT claim; they keep repeating the same oft-debunked chestnuts. But I'm willing to be surprised.

and I'm just a layman with no real research background on this, etc.

Correct. The sad thing is that you don't have to be an engineer to research Apollo. All it takes is a modicum of intelligence and willingness to learn.

but I KNOW what is mind-blowingly improbable and what is not.
I know 'what is showboating' and what is science, Apollo was showboating.

Begging the question. I do not accept that you "know" these things, and unlike you, I have the expertise to judge for myself many of the aspects of Apollo.

I know what a guy on a rope and pulley looks like.
I know what stop-motion animation looks like.
I know the visual effects of film when it's slowed down.

Feel free to raise any specific examples. There are a number of photographic and production experts here, though I'm not one of them.

I know 'what is psychological warfare'
I know what is the darkside of 'the principles of the enlightenment'

Irrelevant to judging the reality of a large engineering project.

I know when I'm talking to a wall.

No. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have to the best of my ability. But so far you've just waved your hands, and insulted people.

Just curious, are there any senior member/hoaxer types?

Don't think so around here, but over on apollohoax (apollohoax.proboards21.com), another board frequented by many of the regulars here, there are several long-time resident hoax believers.

Jason Thompson
2007-Mar-14, 04:17 PM
Where did this abundance of power come from?

The development leading up to the Apollo landings is well documented. Please go and familiarise yourself with it and the technical aspects.

Aren't batteries really heavy?

Are they? Are they heavier than any other power production method that could be employed? Is it a worthwhile trade?

How about rovers? Is it a sensible to have a 3 mile range in exchange for an extra 1000kg load?

Yes, absolutely. Extend the range you extend the scope of your geological studies.

Weren't they concerned about puncturing space suits with all that equipment around??

Of course. Why do you think they wouldn't be?

Each time; separating from an orbiter, landing,

What is hard about that? Do you have a real objection?

disembarking in 250f/-250f temperatures,

You have no idea about thermal transfer mechanisms or what those specific extremes you cite actually apply to in reality, do you?

entering and exiting the lem multiple times over long hours?

Going in and out of a hatch is hard how?

Each time; blasting off the surface in a 'capsule',

In a vehicle designed for the purpose.

reconnecting in a geosynchronous orbit.

Bot geosynchronous at all. It wasn't even a synchronous orbit around the Moon.

Nasa accomplished these miracles 6 times in 3 years?

At the end of a logical progression of ever increasingly complex flights stretching all the way back to Project Mercury, with one failure in the middle of those six successes, and every single mission suffering glitches that could have been showstoppers but weren't thanks to the support teams on the ground and the abilities of the astronauts.

Just out of interest, how much research have you actually done into Apollo before claiming your disbelief in the success of it? You do understand that a ot of seemingly incredible things become a lot more believable if you actually take the time to learn how they achieved them?

sts60
2007-Mar-14, 04:19 PM
Simplicity. Fuel cells require fuel, control systems, plumbing, heat rejection, etc. Batteries require only a place to bolt them.

Well, that's oversimplifying. The batteries needed thermal control and electrical control systems too.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 04:24 PM
Well, that's oversimplifying.

But effective hyperbole, don't you think?

Jason Thompson
2007-Mar-14, 04:26 PM
There is SOOO much visual

Provide it then.

and common sense evidence that these missions were faked.

Common sense is irrelevant in technical discussion. If all you needed to carry out complex science and engineering was common sense there wouldn't be any need for those long years of study and training. Why don't you try an orbital rendezvous simulation one day and see how far your common sense gets you.

I suspect that many aerospace/engineering professionals know this and propagate the lie for national (and personal) security reasons, others I'd imagine, can't consciously acknowledge that they'd been inspired, as children, by lies and faux heroes.

Wild accusations without evidence are not acceptable here.

The biggest reason why this outrageous unprecedented hoax worked is that a very large percentage of the population NEVER questions 'authority' or think about the possible failings, short sightedness or manipulative m.o. of authority

Bull. A very large percentage of the population always questions authority.

I know you've "heard it all" or imagined it all before and I'm just a layman with no real research background on this, etc. but I KNOW what is mind-blowingly improbable and what is not.

Again, bull. You know nothing about the subject, therefore you have absolutely no basis on which to judge the probabilities involved.

I know 'what is showboating' and what is science, Apollo was showboating.

Agreed, but showboating that required science to work.

I know what a guy on a rope and pulley looks like.
I know what stop-motion animation looks like.
I know the visual effects of film when it's slowed down.

So do I, and the Apollo record looks nothing like it if you actually bother to look at the whole thing rather than the few clips conspiracy theorists show you. About the only thing the Apollo record sometimes does resemble is stop-motion, but that's because in most cases the film cameras were set to record at low frame rates and are played back speeded up. Effectively you get stop motion effects because you're not recording the motion at the normal rate or playing it back at true speed.

I know when I'm talking to a wall.

If you think you are talking to a wall now, what is the point of doing so?

Just curious, are there any senior member/hoaxer types?[/QUOTE]

There are plenty of long-serving members here who don't agree with the mainstream on various topics. Contrary to popular belief, the only reason a hoax believer gets banned here is for failing to answer questions put to him, or being rude.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 04:33 PM
I have worked with Apollo engineers and Apollo-era astronauts. I have had first-hand opportunity to evaluate their competence and integrity.

Same here. I was taught my trade by Apollo engineers and have spent my entire professional career trying to match their competence and integrity.

Many of the techniques and technologies and science developed during the effort are standard practice in today's space programs.

They are standard practice throughout several engineering industries. The airliners you fly in incorporate design practices, methods, and technology developed during Apollo.

The sad thing is that you don't have to be an engineer to research Apollo. All it takes is a modicum of intelligence and willingness to learn.

Agreed. I have believed for years that anyone can be taught the basics of rocket science, at least sufficient to evaluate hoax claims on their own. So far I have not encountered anyone lacking the capacity to learn, but I have encountered several with the clear unwillingness to learn.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 04:39 PM
While the LM rendezvous orbit was certainly not geosynchronous in any sense of the word or its component syllables, it was fairly ingenious in its own right. The LM and CSM pursued co-elliptical orbits, meaning that they shared the same major axis, but the apolune of one was the perilune of the other. This gave them two opportunities per revolution to execute the rendezvous terminal manuever.

BertL
2007-Mar-14, 04:40 PM
Well, he's got 73 posts to read. I think that's quite enough for him for now.

sts60
2007-Mar-14, 05:08 PM
Well, that's oversimplifying.

But effective hyperbole, don't you think?
Very. :D

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 05:16 PM
Well, he's got 73 posts to read. I think that's quite enough for him for now.

Yeah, we wouldn't want him to think he's talking to a wall or anything.

Laguna
2007-Mar-14, 06:02 PM
Just a last one:

I suspect that many aerospace/engineering professionals know this and propagate the lie for national (and personal) security reasons,

I am an engineer. I live in Germany. I was born here, raised here, educated here and I am working here. So what national security reasons for the Federal Republic of Germany do exist that would be a reason for me to lie about project Apollo? National security reasons for foreign counties are not accepted as I don't care for foreign countries. I am a mad engineer, as you know.

Not that I would expect any answer. I think the OP is a little white seabird...

Sigma_Orionis
2007-Mar-14, 06:45 PM
and common sense evidence that these missions were faked.
Common sense is irrelevant in technical discussion. If all you needed to carry out complex science and engineering was common sense there wouldn't be any need for those long years of study and training. Why don't you try an orbital rendezvous simulation one day and see how far your common sense gets you.


I did (predictably enough with Orbiter) Common sense did not even help me get around EARTH ORBIT!

And after reading a little note in the manual that said "Do NOT try the "unlimited fuel" model with the Space Shuttle because it will be too heavy to achieve orbit" I understood the amount of work and the engineering compromises required to get that bird OFF the ground (regardless of whether the Shuttle was a good idea or not. I am speaking from the point of view of what the designers HAD to do to get it to work) As far as I am concerned, I have nothing but respect for the engineers that design and build any kind of aircraft.

sts60
2007-Mar-14, 06:47 PM
National security reasons for foreign counties are not accepted as I don't care for foreign countries.

But what about your personal security reasons? Aren't you afraid of the evil secret ninja assassin army employed by NASA to suppress the truth all these years?

After all, it only took them three and a half decades to catch up with Bill Kaysing...

Laguna
2007-Mar-14, 06:59 PM
National security reasons for foreign counties are not accepted as I don't care for foreign countries.

But what about your personal security reasons? Aren't you afraid of the evil secret ninja assassin army employed by NASA to suppress the truth all these years?

After all, it only took them three and a half decades to catch up with Bill Kaysing...
Nope :D
*hides the ninja sword behind his back*

Gillianren
2007-Mar-14, 08:12 PM
Reading again what I typed, I put it a bit confusing. "he told me" should be read as "he told in a lecture which I attended". I don't know how to put that short and clear in English.

That's about the shortest and clearest way there is.

Nicolas
2007-Mar-14, 08:33 PM
OK then :). I didn't intend to falsely brag on having had a private conversation with Buzz. I can brag enough about having seen him in a lecture (from 5 meters distance :)) without lying. :D

Occam
2007-Mar-14, 08:56 PM
I'm still envious. Those guys are my childhood heroes and Aldrin went through his own personal hell after Apollo 11 and still triumphed over the odds.
He virtually wrote the book on EVA's, during the Gemini programme and has achieved so much, just being in the same room and hearing him speak would be a thrill.

Nicolas
2007-Mar-14, 09:12 PM
It was a thrill when he entered indeed, more than just a thrill. That guy pretty much invented rendez-vous, spacewalking, underwater training, he was the first crew to be on the moon... I don't like to compare them, but he is one of the most important astronauts. As said in the introduction, this guy is going to be right up there with magellan and columbus in future history books (I hope they don't forget collins!!). Imagine having seen Columbus in real life. I was born too late for Apollo, but I did catch up a bit this way. Maybe I'll go to florida once and see the SatV, but the mony is holding me back a bit. (I've got a brother who wants to join me and knows a place where we can stay, but a plane ticket to the other side of the world still is big money. Honestly, for that money I'd rather buy a Gibson SG :D).

And though on one hand Aldrin's happily promoting himself and his scifi novel (which mainly is a cultural difference, I must add, belgians tend to be insecure about themselves), on the other hand he's not too shy to talk about his drinking problem in the past, and how he still needs to be careful with that.

AGN Fuel
2007-Mar-14, 11:10 PM
After all, it only took them three and a half decades to catch up with Bill Kaysing...

Easy to criticize, but do you know just how many cat sanctuaries there are in the Nevada desert?

It would have been easier if Kaysing had specified which sanctuary he was residing in in his documentaries etc, but he was too wily an old fox to fall for that!

;)


(Reading this thread reminds me a little of a time I saw a surfing newbie try to take on a pounding 4 metre swell on one of our local beaches following a nasty storm. A surprising decision by him, you had to offer a begrudging acknowlegement of his chutzpah... but you knew from the outset it could only end one way, and that way was not going to be pretty.)

Jeff Root
2007-Mar-14, 11:29 PM
While the LM rendezvous orbit was certainly not geosynchronous in
any sense of the word or its component syllables, it was fairly ingenious
in its own right. The LM and CSM pursued co-elliptical orbits, meaning
that they shared the same major axis, but the apolune of one was the
perilune of the other. This gave them two opportunities per revolution
to execute the rendezvous terminal manuever.
I don't remember that. And I can't visualize it. Could you link to a
diagram?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

JayUtah
2007-Mar-14, 11:37 PM
Could you link to a diagram?

The only diagrams I know of are the ones I've drawn on paper. Here's a bit more information.
http://www.jdkbph.com/ALMT/12LMAscent.htm

tardis
2007-Mar-15, 01:02 AM
Well...

I didn't mean to offend anyone here.

There are a lot of interesting responses here and I wish I had the time to respond to most of them. I realize that not responding is frowned upon but my work keeps me away from the Internet right now, so I 'll just try and respond to a few.

Let me first say that I don't intend to insult anyone in expressing my viewpoint.

Re: A Large percentage of people not questioning authority:

I acknowledge that the 60's and 70's were a time where many Americans questioned our government, it just wasn't the majority of Americans or the majority of American media(no mass media, similar to Kennedy's Assassination) and certainly not politicians.
Also; I don't see attempting to cover up Watergate as a national security issue and Nixon the Republican may not have been as much of an insider as say....Johnson the Democrat.
Re: liberal/conservative; I don't buy into the 'party image' that is portrayed by the media.


Re:"Common sense is irrelevant in technical discussion."

Well I'm out gunned and out numbered here as my only technical expertise is in media production and even at that I'd prefer to be more of an artist.

Re: Citing evidence

I won't be linking to the videos that show astronauts jumping up and landing back on the surface with a delay or cushion (well after maximum ascension), or a video of an astronaut climbing up a ladder wile appearing to oscillate up ,down, side to side, without pushing with hands or legs, appearing to display similar properties to a pendulum and seemingly unable to control his own movement. The reasons why I won't post the links to the video is because hoax debunker experts are familiar with them and I'm sure have a rational for what is happening there also my external linking would need to be moderated.
Like I said, I have no expertise to provide any evidence that hasn't already had a rash of debunking thrown at it. I'll leave that to the Investigators.

Jeff Root
2007-Mar-15, 01:30 AM
While the LM rendezvous orbit was certainly not geosynchronous in
any sense of the word or its component syllables, it was fairly ingenious
in its own right. The LM and CSM pursued co-elliptical orbits, meaning
that they shared the same major axis, but the apolune of one was the
perilune of the other. This gave them two opportunities per revolution
to execute the rendezvous terminal manuever.
I don't remember that. And I can't visualize it. Could you link to a
diagram?
The only diagrams I know of are the ones I've drawn on paper. Here's
a bit more information.
http://www.jdkbph.com/ALMT/12LMAscent.htm
I couldn't make much out of that. I gather that what you described
is the first method described on the page, in which the LM first goes
into an orbit 15 nm below the CSM. It looks to me like they were
both in circular orbits at that point.

You know, I wonder if what you really meant to say was that there
were two ways rendezvous could be achieved from that initial orbit
configuration: Either the LM could raise its apolune to the altitude
of the CSM, or the CSM could lower its perilune to the altitude of
the LM. I expect that those two proceedures would have different
starting times, which sort of satisfies your description of having
"two opportunities". But that wouldn't be "per revolution" because
the LM would continue to pull ahead of the CSM as long as they
both remained in circular orbits.

Once the LM had raised its apolune or the CSM had lowered its
perilune, then either the same craft could circularize its orbit at
that altitude, or the other craft could match the elliptical orbit
of the first. Another way to sort of satisfy your description of
"two opportunities", but again, not "per revolution".

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Tinaa
2007-Mar-15, 01:48 AM
tardis unless you are willing to backup your statements with evidence I must shut down this thread. Please follow up with your evidence within 48 hours or I close this thread.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-15, 02:11 AM
I didn't mean to offend anyone here.

Too late. If you go around long enough saying that you suspect all aerospace engineers of lying to cover up Apollo, pretty soon you're going to run into some. And they'll naturally want you either to substantiate your suspicions or stop going around defaming them. Lucky for you we're willing to talk out our differences.

...but my work keeps me away from the Internet right now...

As does ours. It's bad form to have plenty of time to make allegations but little time to substantiate them after they're questioned.

Let me first say that I don't intend to insult anyone in expressing my viewpoint.

Calling an allegation of fact a viewpoint does not relieve it of its fundamental character. If you say I and my colleagues are liars, you either have the facts to prove it or you don't.

I acknowledge that the 60's and 70's were a time where many Americans questioned our government...

That's fine, but I personally consider that irrelevant. Have you considered that there are people who believe in Apollo not because they unquestioningly accept the word of their leaders, but because they have the appropriate technical and scientific understanding, are well aware of the facts, and have drawn an objectively defensible conclusion?

Granted there are some who believe in it naively, but that really doesn't matter. The question is not whether there are people who believe something for bad reasons, but whether there are people who believe it for good ones.

Well I'm out gunned and out numbered here as my only technical expertise is in media production and even at that I'd prefer to be more of an artist.

That's fine. I'm sure you can tell many of us things we'd never know or guess about that industry. I happen also to be an actor and technician at a commercial theater, and in the local film industry. I know a thing or two myself about how to produce photographs, films, and stage effects.

I won't be linking to the videos that show...

You imply that there's evidence out there that supports your viewpoint, yet you won't show it to us. How honest is that?

Like I said, I have no expertise to provide any evidence that hasn't already had a rash of debunking thrown at it.

So are you telling us you don't have any evidence? Or are you telling us you have no evidence you're willing to show us? If you aren't willing to back up your claims, it would be polite of you to retract them and apologize for having wasted our time.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-15, 02:16 AM
It looks to me like they were both in circular orbits at that point.

Nope. Hardly any orbit is circular. It doesn't take much eccentricity to carry your rendezvous target out of reach.

You know, I wonder if what you really meant to say was that there were two ways rendezvous could be achieved from that initial orbit configuration: Either the LM could raise its apolune to the altitude of the CSM, or the CSM could lower its perilune to the altitude of the LM.

No, but that's an important point too. The CSM descent contingency was if the LM could not achieve a suitable orbit. In any rendezvous, one vehicle is active and does a transfer from its parking orbit to a redezvous orbit; the other is passive and just sits there remaining predictable.

Swift
2007-Mar-15, 02:22 AM
<snip>
Re: A Large percentage of people not questioning authority:

I acknowledge that the 60's and 70's were a time where many Americans questioned our government, it just wasn't the majority of Americans or the majority of American media(no mass media, similar to Kennedy's Assassination) and certainly not politicians.
Also; I don't see attempting to cover up Watergate as a national security issue and Nixon the Republican may not have been as much of an insider as say....Johnson the Democrat.
Re: liberal/conservative; I don't buy into the 'party image' that is portrayed by the media.

Since this is sort of a response to my question, I'll respond back.

First, do you think this is a "majority rules" thing. If 55% of the population questioned authority we would now know "THE TRUTH" about Apollo, but since only 30% did, NASA managed to keep the cover-up in place?

And what about the rest of the planet, you don't think the Russians or the Chinese would have exposed that the US faked the whole thing? The Russians brought back there own samples from the moon, don't you think they would have said something about the fact that our fake rocks were different? What about the fact that the whole world could track the progress of the Apollo spacecraft as they left Earth orbit and went to the moon; do you think the Russians kept quiet about that?

And there were plenty of politicians who question authority. Ever hear of Gene McCarthy for one.

As far as Johnson is an insider and Nixon isn't, I don't know what you are talking about. Inside what?

Gillianren
2007-Mar-15, 09:03 AM
...but my work keeps me away from the Internet right now...

As does ours.

To be scrupulously fair, mine doesn't; I don't have any. However, I'm a writer, not an engineer, so my information isn't anywhere near as extensive. Further, I do have a roommate trying to write a thesis with the help of a professor 3000 miles away and only one computer hooked up to the internet, so it's hardly as though I can spend all my time online, either.

Serenitude
2007-Mar-15, 09:17 AM
"I'm going to use the excuse of "being busy" suddenly in an attempt to justify the fact that most of you have me caught, and therefore I will be extremely selective in what I respond to..."

If I only had a nickel... :hand:

Jason Thompson
2007-Mar-15, 11:14 AM
Well...

I didn't mean to offend anyone here.

In which case calling engineers liars and frauds was a bad move.


I acknowledge that the 60's and 70's were a time where many Americans questioned our government, it just wasn't the majority of Americans or the majority of American media(no mass media, similar to Kennedy's Assassination) and certainly not politicians.

Still irrelevant. Belief in Apollo is not done by majority but by analysis of a scientific nature.


Well I'm out gunned and out numbered here as my only technical expertise is in media production and even at that I'd prefer to be more of an artist.

So you have no technical problems with the equipment involved? So what is your belief based upon?



I won't be linking to the videos that show astronauts jumping up and landing back on the surface with a delay or cushion (well after maximum ascension), or a video of an astronaut climbing up a ladder wile appearing to oscillate up ,down, side to side, without pushing with hands or legs, appearing to display similar properties to a pendulum and seemingly unable to control his own movement.

I'm pretty sure that breaks a rule of this forum. If you have evidence then post it.


The reasons why I won't post the links to the video is because hoax debunker experts are familiar with them and I'm sure have a rational for what is happening there

And your reasons for disregarding the rationale presented are?


Like I said, I have no expertise to provide any evidence that hasn't already had a rash of debunking thrown at it.

So you have no evidence that hasn't been debunked, no technical know-how with which to assess the debunking, and yet you still cling to a belief it was faked. Why?

This is a discussion forum. Just waving your arms around shouting how you believe it was faked is a pointless exercise and does not invite discussion unless you are willing to back up your beliefs.

NEOWatcher
2007-Mar-15, 02:14 PM
The reasons why I won't post the links to the video is because hoax debunker experts are familiar with them and I'm sure have a rational for what is happening there also my external linking would need to be moderated.
Like I said, I have no expertise to provide any evidence that hasn't already had a rash of debunking thrown at it. I'll leave that to the Investigators.
This is the statement that I am most confused about and would like an explaination.
If the videos have been debunked, and have rational explainations, then why do you not accept that?

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-15, 03:17 PM
Like I said, I have no expertise to provide any evidence that hasn't already had a rash of debunking thrown at it. I'll leave that to the Investigators.

And it's the old "I say it's x even though there are mountains of evidence to the contrary, it's up to science to prove that I'm wrong" tactic as well. So far tardis is right on track. We've got the liar/fraud arguement, the lack of evidence, the handwaving, the "lack of time to respond", and the attempted shift of burden of proof. I wonder what's next.

Laguna
2007-Mar-15, 03:30 PM
And it's the old "I say it's x even though there are mountains of evidence to the contrary, it's up to science to prove that I'm wrong" tactic as well. So far tardis is right on track. We've got the liar/fraud arguement, the lack of evidence, the handwaving, the "lack of time to respond", and the attempted shift of burden of proof. I wonder what's next.
Usually the candidate gets in conflict with the boards rules and then is banned. Lets see what happens this time.
I will get myself a cold beer and sit down on the lurkers bench over there.

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-15, 03:43 PM
Usually the candidate gets in conflict with the boards rules and then is banned. Lets see what happens this time.
I will get myself a cold beer and sit down on the lurkers bench over there.

Yea I was thinking either meltdown or circle back to the OP and restate ad infinitum. Hm, third option would be to abandon this thread and start a new one...

Laguna
2007-Mar-15, 03:58 PM
Yea I was thinking either meltdown or circle back to the OP and restate ad infinitum. Hm, third option would be to abandon this thread and start a new one...
Not abandon it, just join in on other threads.
Already done...

ashok_bitsboymech
2007-Mar-15, 03:59 PM
hey friend
i feel apollo lander got the power from the sun since any form of energy can be converted to another form....so the solar energy can be converted in the from of electrical and other stuff to run the equipments
bye
ashokkumar r

Nicolas
2007-Mar-15, 04:14 PM
That sounds logical, but it wasn't the case. Apollo had no solar panels. It was a short duration mission with high energy requirements, sos they stuck to batteries and fuel cells. You can look that up on the internet.

Solar panels are interesting for long duration missions. Note that the space shuttle, which is limited to short duration missions of about 2 week, also doesn't have solar panels.

sts60
2007-Mar-15, 04:25 PM
However, the Orion crew module will use solar panels:

Nicolas
2007-Mar-15, 04:29 PM
I assume, but I don't know for sure, that the reasons behind this are that

a) it will be used on longer missions than Apollo
and
b) solar panel electric and stuctural efficiency has increased quite a lot since Apollo, and apparently now it is structurally advantageous to choose solar panels over other energy sources.

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-15, 04:55 PM
I suppose in some respects the power on the LM came from the sun. Richard Feynman said in his book "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" that his dad would quiz him about stuff like that. I don't remember the exact example from the book, but the arguemtn for the LM would be:

Where did the LM get power? Batteries
Where did the batteries get energy? They were designed to work that way by men
Where did the men get the energy? From the food they ate
Where did the food get the energy? From the sun

See, everything is solar powered :)

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-15, 04:56 PM
However, the Orion crew module will use solar panels:

But won't the lander be battery powered still? Or do we even know yet?

captain swoop
2007-Mar-15, 05:27 PM
Hey Tardis, I would have thought that if your time would be better spent in your existing thread rather than starting new ones.

NEOWatcher
2007-Mar-15, 05:33 PM
Hey Tardis, I would have thought that if your time would be better spent in your existing thread rather than starting new ones.
[Film Noir Voice]Little does Tardis realize, the same Bauters tend to be hiding in many threads.[/Film Noir Voice]:shifty:

Donnie B.
2007-Mar-15, 05:37 PM
I suppose in some respects the power on the LM came from the sun. Richard Feynman said in his book "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" that his dad would quiz him about stuff like that. I don't remember the exact example from the book, but the arguemtn for the LM would be:

Where did the LM get power? Batteries
Where did the batteries get energy? They were designed to work that way by men
Where did the men get the energy? From the food they ate
Where did the food get the energy? From the sun

See, everything is solar powered :)You could go a different route, too.

Where did the LM get power? Batteries.
Where did the batteries get energy? They were charged from the CSM fuel cells.
Where did the fuel cells get energy? From hydrogen and oxygen.
Where did the hydrogen come from? Extracted from fossil fuels.
Where did the fossil fuels come from? Living organisms.
Where did the organisms get their energy? Either directly from the Sun or indirectly from other organisms that got their energy from the Sun.
So the LM was solar powered.

Except the ALSEP, of course. Nuclear energy isn't derived from the Sun... at least, not our Sun.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-15, 05:51 PM
i feel apollo lander got the power from the sun since any form of energy can be converted to another form.

The question of what can be done is different from the question of what is best to do in some case, and both are different from the question of was done in the case of the Apollo LM. Yes, it is possible to convert between forms of energy. Specifically, it is possible to convert light into electricity. However, photoelectric conversion was not the best overall solution for the LM.

First, photoelectric power is notoriously inefficient, around 15%. Every watt of electricity requires about 7 watts of incoming light, or at least around 0.005 square meter of solar cell area. The average LM EPS load was around 1,000 W, requiring 7,000 W of incoming solar energy or at least 35 square meters of solar cell area.

Second, the LM is not always in sunlight. Half of its orbital operations will be conducted in the Moon's shadow. Therefore you need batteries anyway to store electricity for the times when solar energy is not available. That means in addition to providing electricity directly for operations, you need additional solar collection capacity to top off the batteries when solar energy is available.

Third, peak load is significantly greater than 1,000 W. If a direct solar system is used, it must be sized for peak loads that may be 5-6 times the average load. On the other hand, the battery buffers from above can be used to supplant the solar arrays for peak operations, provided those batteries have not been exhausted.

In short, you can't escape the weight of batteries. All you do when you incorporate solar collectors is to complicate the design of the LM and add weight to it. The more complicated an electrical system is, the more likely it is to break. For the LM's mission, batteries alone is the proper engineering choice.

Laguna
2007-Mar-15, 05:54 PM
We are all nothing but solar flow heaters...

JayUtah
2007-Mar-15, 05:56 PM
However, the Orion crew module will use solar panels:

The Soyuz did pretty much from the start. It's not impossible to use solar power on an Apollo-type spacecraft, nor even wrong. It comes down to engineering judgment, weighing likely failure modes against likely wins.

Fazor
2007-Mar-15, 06:28 PM
Off topic, sorry, but had to mention Jay that I liked your avitar, looked distinguished. That is, until I noticed while walking back to my desk that from a distance it also resemble Mrs. Butterworth ;) Sorry couldn't resist. Now back to our regularly scheduled show.

Donnie B.
2007-Mar-15, 06:58 PM
Off topic, sorry, but had to mention Jay that I liked your avitar, looked distinguished. That is, until I noticed while walking back to my desk that from a distance it also resemble Mrs. Butterworth ;) That's a whistle blow! Don't you see? Mrs. Butterworth is fake maple syrup.

Jeff Root
2007-Mar-15, 07:05 PM
Jay,

It still looks to me like the CSM and LM were both in circular
orbits, even though the term used is "co-elliptic". From the
web page you linked:

http://www.jdkbph.com/ALMT/12LMAscent.htm


Historically, two methods were employed for CSM/LM Lunar Orbit
Rendezvous during the Apollo Moon missions - the Co-elliptic
method and the Direct Rendezvous method. The Co-elliptic method
consisted of six phases (values typical).:

Launch and Orbit Insertion - a 9 x 45 nm (16.7 x 83.3 km) orbit

Co-elliptic Sequence Initiation (CSI) - a 45 nm (83.3 km) circular orbit

Constant Delta Height (CDH) - an orbit 15 nm (27.7 km) below the CSM

Terminal Phase Initiation (TPI) - a transfer orbit to intercept the CSM orbit.

TPI Mid-course Correction - as necessary

Terminal Phase Final (TPF) - braking and rendezvous
I can't figure out what you mean by "two opportunities per
revolution to execute the rendezvous terminal manuever".
Lemme see a diagram!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

papageno
2007-Mar-15, 08:26 PM
Reading again what I typed, I put it a bit confusing. "he told me" should be read as "he told in a lecture which I attended". I don't know how to put that short and clear in English.

That's about the shortest and clearest way there is.

What about "He said." ?
:whistle:

Nicolas
2007-Mar-15, 08:51 PM
that loses the information on me being there.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-15, 08:51 PM
It still looks to me like the CSM and LM were both in circular orbits, even though the term used is "co-elliptic".

Yes, you're right. The same constant-height-difference math works for elliptical orbits, so the proper term is coelliptical even if the orbits are circles. The elliptical case might be for a contingency rendezvous, now that you mention it. I swear I'm not making this up, but what I'm thinking of is clearly not what I pointed you to -- sorry.

Irishman
2007-Mar-15, 10:30 PM
Everyone else has already hammered these pretty good, but I still want to say a couple things.


tardis said:
but I KNOW what is mind-blowingly improbable and what is not.

This is a crucial question. You claim that the Apollo missions were "mind-blowingly improbable". What is your basis for that judgment? This seems to be the basis for the rest of your position on Apollo, so it is crucial you address why you think Apollo could not have been done at the time with the technology they claim to have used.


I know 'what is showboating' and what is science, Apollo was showboating.

Buried under the vague and inaccurate statement is a grain of truth. The purpose of Apollo was never primarily about science. Science was just a tag-along, a "something to do while we're going" thing. The primary purpose and key justification for it was always political - establishing that U.S. technology was superior to the Soviets'. If that is what you mean by "showboating", then I'll grant you a bit of truth. But in order to pull off Apollo, it required a vast amount of actual science and technology development. That aspect of it was not "showboating", though they learned the hard way they needed to be extra careful.



Skyfire:we don't expect others to accept what we as individuals "know", without showing evidence for it.

tardis: How can "individual" science researcher have answers for every aspect of 'hoax theories' if:
-They weren't there.
-They read something written by someone else.
-They only research in a minute sector of a science field.


You misunderstand. Personal knowledge is not evidence, it is subjective and anecdotal. The answer is not for you to tell us what you "know", the answer is for you to show us why you "know". What evidence supports the claim? What led you to decide your position? Video? Pictures? Some lame guy with a book? Some poorly layed out website with blinking, technicolor fonts?


"Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by the NASA administrators, that they specified, supervised, and otherwise administered a real project that really put people on the moon."

No, except the putting on of people on the moon.

Okay, what evidence do you have that NASA administrators specified, supervised, and otherwised administered a project to fake putting men on the moon? Because that's what's left - they claim they put men on the Moon, there's evidence of men on the Moon, so where's the evidence that the official evidence is fake?


"Any evidence that causes you to doubt the claims made by professional and amateur radio operators around the world, that they located and tracked the Apollo spacecraft to, on, and from the Moon?"

Unfortunately, I have no evidence here but I heard that after Apollo 11 there was a satellite launched to orbit the moon which sent telemetric data.

Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that some post-Apollo 11 satellite was used in some manner? Or are you saying you heard after Apollo 11 that what they did for A11 and the rest was use a satellite? And what evidence do you have for the claim? You heard it somewhere? Did you ask your source what evidence they had, or did you just accept their word for it? If you just accepted their word for it, then why do you claim that most people are gullible and only believe the official word because they aren't critical enough? Shouldn't you start by scrutinizing your own sources?


The reasons why I won't post the links to the video is because hoax debunker experts are familiar with them and I'm sure have a rational for what is happening

So wait, do you want to have explained what you perceive as anomalies or not? This is the evidence that convinces you, but you won't share it? That isn't fair.


there also my external linking would need to be moderated.

Everything is moderated on this board. Post the links. If they do not violate the rules (which you can look up), they will stay. If they violate the rules (which you really should look up), then they will be removed. But moderating also extends to your claims, as well as your continued membership here. Posting claims and failing to back them up when asked is greatly disapproved.


NEOWatcher said:

Originally Posted by tardis
Like I said, I have no expertise to provide any evidence that hasn't already had a rash of debunking thrown at it.


This is the statement that I am most confused about and would like an explaination.
If the videos have been debunked, and have rational explainations, then why do you not accept that?

What he said was "had a rash of debunking thrown at it". This suggests he is not convinced by the explanations offerred, that they are not correct explanations, but just attempts to distract. Of course, he also says he has no expertise, so I have to wonder how he can judge them incorrect explanations.


papagenop said:
What about "He said." ?


Nicolas said:
that loses the information on me being there.

I think he meant replace "told" with "said", but keep the rest of the sentence.
I suspect he's trying to outcorrect Gillianren.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-15, 10:43 PM
This is the statement that I am most confused about and would like an explaination.

As would I. My interpretation of Tardis intended argument is, frankly, not very charitable and it would be good to know whether I'd be putting the right words in his mouth before I tear apart my own straw man.

He has fallen to the same trap of "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette: the astronauts never went to the moon, but while they were there they saw space aliens. Sorry, but no amount of avowed open-mindedness compensates for inarguably paradoxical claims. We can leave aside the UFO claims for now, but the key tidbit from that thread is Tardis' belief that the government actively suppresses or undermines "open minded" people.

We have seen conspiracy theorists misuse the phase open minded before. In conspiracy-speak it's a euphemism for accepting claims without question. Most conspiracy theorists don't seem to realize that at least some of their critics have carefully evaluated those claims and have concluded on an objective basis that they're just not as likely to be true as some other claim. That's by no means the sign of a closed mind.

We also saw Tardis offer the notion that some arguments aren't debunkable. I guess this means subjective opinions, but it might mean simply things on which there isn't enough evidence to avoid the suspension of judgment. But sadly we've all seen other conspiracists shift goalposts and burdens of proof in order to create the superficial impression of meaningful doubt.

If I put all this and other points together and simmer for a couple of days, one possible approach starts to take shape.

First, the handwaving FUD about how impossible Apollo would have been. Then the handwaving FUD about how accepting of authority the American public was.

Into the midst of this comes Tardis, the artist with expertise in media production. He knows what fakery looks like, and implies he's seen it in the Apollo material. It looks very much like an attempt at expert testimony. In his description of the evidence he says he has, but won't be providing, we find allusions to what he thinks that evidence shows: stop-motion, wire work, etc. And he wants his subjective interpretation of that material to stand as evidence.

In this respect he is little different from Bart Sibrel, who claims, "I am a filmmaker; I am an expert at making the fake look real." And presumably this allows him and Tardis both to differentiate between the real looking real and the fake looking real. Sibrel so far hasn't been able to do that, and I strongly suspect Tardis can't either. But until he actually presents his evidence there will be no way to know.

When he says we've debunked his evidence, I take it to mean not that he doesn't consider it evidence anymore, but instead that he doesn't consider us an appropriate audience in which to discuss it -- essentially implying that we've prejudicially and closed-mindedly rejected it, so there's no point in supplying it. But until he actually presents his evidence, there's no way to know.

Normally I'd be inclined to give Tardis the benefit of the doubt. If he says he's an expert in media production, let's let him lay out an expert's case. But I'm certainly not willing to accept the argument, "I'm an expert; I know it was fake." Experts demonstrate their expertise by giving detailed arguments, not brief ones. And I'm slightly disinclined to charity after hearing how he has treated everyone else's expertise. If he suggests that all aerospace engineers are lying to cover up Apollo, what keeps us from arguing that all filmmakers are lying to protect conspiracy theorists?

Svector
2007-Mar-15, 10:57 PM
what keeps us from arguing that all filmmakers are lying to protect conspiracy theorists?

Ummmm, me?

:naughty:

Nowhere Man
2007-Mar-15, 11:09 PM
It still looks to me like the CSM and LM were both in circular orbits, even though the term used is "co-elliptic".
Remember that a circle is just a special case of an ellipse.

Fred

JayUtah
2007-Mar-15, 11:42 PM
Remember that a circle is just a special case of an ellipse.

Jeff probably knows that, but the scenario I quoted him required ellipses, not circles. He is quite right in pointing out that the ascent and rendezvous orbits were indeed as circular as attainable.

There is a contingency in the flight plan that requires the CSM to maneuver in order to rendezvous with a partially disabled LM ascent stage in an elliptical orbit. The CSM leaves its circular passive orbit and enters an elliptical orbit somewhat congruent with the LM's. The same rendezvous method works, but I'm doubting now whether they were oppositely oriented as I originally said.

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 12:40 AM
I will share some visual evidence.

In this video is real NASA footage from Apollo. Now, in my opinion this is strong visual evidence of a hoax. I don't see how this can be officially debunked. I Imagine that the anti conspiracy people don't see anything unusual here.

I can see a rope and pulley system above the astronauts pack as he 'climbs' up onto the LM .....ALSO if you pause the video a few different times in the first 5 seconds, you (me) can actually see the rope. This apparent "pulley system" is visible in another (not posted) film segment when an astronaut descends down the ladder. To me.. it's obvious that the astronaut is hanging in the mid section of a tight rope.

Disregard the audio, This is visual evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJumGjmSjU

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 12:46 AM
I will share some visual evidence.

In this video is real NASA footage from Apollo. Now, in my opinion this is strong visual evidence of a hoax. I don't see how this can be officially debunked. I Imagine that the anti conspiracy people don't see anything unusual here.

I can see a rope and pulley system above the astronauts pack as he 'climbs' up onto the LM .....ALSO if you pause the video a few different times in the first 5 seconds, you (me) can actually see the rope. This apparent "pulley system" is visible in another (not posted) film segment when an astronaut descends down the ladder. To me.. it's obvious that the astronaut is hanging in the mid section of a tight rope.

Disregard the audio, This is visual evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJumGjmSjU

It's the antenna on the PLSS

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss104.jpg

Jason Thompson
2007-Mar-16, 12:54 AM
I can see a rope and pulley system above the astronauts pack as he 'climbs' up onto the LM

Please tell us exactly where you can clearly identify ropes and pulleys in that low-res clip. Have you seen the original, uncompressed footage in its complete form?


ALSO if you pause the video a few different times in the first 5 seconds, you (me) can actually see the rope.

No, you can see something you have decided is a rope. I can see a PLSS antenna.

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 12:55 AM
It's the antenna on the PLSS

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss104.jpg


The antenna is not visible in this first segment, as far as i can tell.

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 12:55 AM
You're also not understanding that, while the weight of the astronauts and their equipment was less on the moon, the MASS of those objects didn't change. It was difficult for the astronauts to get used to this at first. When you put 250 earth-pounds of equipment in motion on the moon it doesn't just stop moving when you stop your legs. If you watch some of the video from Apollo 11, for example, you will see Buzz start hopping towards the camera with the intention of moving it, but misjudges his momentum and overshoots where the camera is sitting. Also, because of the change in weight, the astronauts had to compensate for the heaviness of the PLSS, which made it necessary for them to lean further forward to stay balanced, which makes the motion of standing up after falling different. That's what you see in the second part of that clip.

We are used to the way things behave on Earth, with Earth gravity. Your intuition, which is what are you are using to decide these landings were fake, is based soley on your experience on Earth. Your intuition is wrong. As the BA says repeatedly, the Earth is not the moon.

Dave J
2007-Mar-16, 12:55 AM
I can't see ropes...or pulleys.

What I can see is guys that "weigh" some 50 lbs in the lunar gravity using their arm and leg muscles to maneuver around.
Sure, 1/6g "looks" odd, but that doesn't make it fake. Open your mind, try to imagine trundling around in low gravity, with your full strength muscles at hand. Use some imagination...

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 12:56 AM
The antenna is not visible in this first segment, as far as i can tell.

The antenna is tricky to see at certain angles because it is flat. It's the difference between looking at a butter knife edge on or from the flat side.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-16, 01:03 AM
The antenna is not visible in this first segment, as far as i can tell.

It's a blade antenna. If you were to cut 18 inches off of a carpenter's metal tape measure, you'd have an idea what it's like. Seen edge-on it's nearly invisible in video. When it's turned sideways and it catches the sunlight there's a glint. But it's not a tubular antenna that should always been seen equally from every angle.

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 01:06 AM
At 1 min 48 in the following clip the astronaut appears to be hanging foreward with his knees bent and appears to be lifted off the ground, swings around as if he has "twirled" at the end of a rope. The 'antenna' is clearly visible in this one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSHFekcXhNQ

JayUtah
2007-Mar-16, 01:11 AM
At 1 min 48 in the following clip the astronaut appears to be hanging foreward with his knees bent...

This is not Earth gravity.

...and appears to be lifted off the ground...

This is not Earth gravity.

Your intuition doesn't tell you anything useful about this scenario. Where's the proof that this is not lunar gravity at work?

...swings around as if he has "twirled" at the end of a rope.

Show me the rope.

The 'antenna' is clearly visible in this one.

Yes it is, right where I expect to see the PLSS antenna.

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 01:11 AM
At 1 min 48 in the following clip the astronaut appears to be hanging foreward with his knees bent and appears to be lifted off the ground, swings around as if he has "twirled" at the end of a rope. The 'antenna' is clearly visible in this one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSHFekcXhNQ

As I stated in my post above, they leaned forward to compensate for the added weight on their backs. And he is twirling because he lost his balance. And yes, the antenna is clearly visible. Notice how, as the astronauts turns around, the antenna reflects light at different levels of intensity? That's because it's flat. If it was a cable or rope it would have the same refelctivity at all angles to the sun.

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 01:35 AM
lower gravity effects wouldn't change the way one VERTICALLY balances weight.

I.E.
If you were carrying 200lbs on the back of your shoulders on earth, you WOULD lean slightly forward above your abdomen but you WOULDN'T be inclined to do it wile bending down both knees, unless you wanted to get crushed by the 200lbs.

SpitfireIX
2007-Mar-16, 02:08 AM
lower gravity effects wouldn't change the way one VERTICALLY balances weight.

No. Try walking while carrying 30 lbs of books held on your shoulder. Now try walking again with only five lbs of books held the same way. Did you balance any differently?

If you were carrying 200lbs on the back of your shoulders on earth, you WOULD lean slightly forward above your abdomen but you WOULDN'T be inclined to do it wile bending down both knees, unless you wanted to get crushed by the 200lbs.

The 200 lbs would only weigh about 33 lbs on the moon. Are you saying that an adult male can't kneel with a 33 lb pack on his back?

SpitfireIX
2007-Mar-16, 02:09 AM
If it was a cable or rope it would have the same refelctivity at all angles to the sun.


You mean, "at all angles to the studio lights." :p

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 02:20 AM
lower gravity effects wouldn't change the way one VERTICALLY balances weight.

I.E.
If you were carrying 200lbs on the back of your shoulders on earth, you WOULD lean slightly forward above your abdomen but you WOULDN'T be inclined to do it wile bending down both knees, unless you wanted to get crushed by the 200lbs.


They still had Earth muscles when they were on the moon...and they weren't supporting even their normal body weight.

And even the astronauts commented on how far forward they had to lean.

From ALSJ A12 EVA1


115:27:19 Bean: Boy, you sure lean forward, Pete.
115:27:22 Conrad: Hey, "lean forward": I feel like I'm going to fall over in any direction
115:27:26 Bean: You're leaning about...
115:27:27 Conrad: Say, Houston; one of the first things that I can see, by golly, is little glass beads. I got a piece about a quarter of an inch in sight, and I'm going to put it in the contingency sample bag, if I can get it. I got it. Am I really leaning over, Al?
115:27:50 Bean: You sure are. On Earth, you'd fall over, I believe.
115:27:54 Conrad: Huh?
115:27:55 Bean: On Earth, you'd fall over leaning that far forward.
115:27:59 Conrad: It seems a little weird, I'll tell you. Don't think you're going to steam around here quite as fast as you thought you were

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 02:38 AM
[/B]The 200 lbs would only weigh about 33 lbs on the moon. Are you saying that an adult male can't kneel with a 33 lb pack on his back?


Why would he need to lean forward????

If a cable was pulling on his Pack, that would be a good reason.


I'm not finding much substance or beef to these balancing arguments.

They just seem to be based on non science.

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 02:42 AM
If my total weight on the moon, including pack, was under a hundred pounds, I would be jumping higher and farther than I do on earth and I wouldn't be worried about going off balance.

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 02:46 AM
Why would he need to lean forward????

If a cable was pulling on his Pack, that would be a good reason.


I'm not finding much substance or beef to these balancing arguments.

They just seem to be based on non science.

Handwaving. It doesn't look right to you so the evidence and numbers we've provided are discarded.

Back to Jay's question then. What proof do you have this is not lunar gravity? We've explained the antenna, we've explained the leaning, we've explained the motion of the bodies. Your handwaving does not make these facts go away. Your intuition on how they should look is wrong. The moon is not the earth.

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-16, 02:48 AM
Why would he need to lean forward????

because the mass is still the same.

Having the 200lbs on his back means that his CoM is thrown backwards, so he has to lean forwards, but because he is only 1/6 g, the weight of the that mass is only a 1/6 of what it should be allowing him to carry it far easier.

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 02:51 AM
First off, I watched the "youtube" video (is that the best you can do?), and all I see are horrible, horrible compression artifacts, on an obviously (words, hello?) altered video. This isn't "pure NASA" footage. If you are in the film industry and would contend it is, you should be stripped by your guild of any credentials. It's the equivelant of a nurse grabbing a handful of dirt, injecting it into a patient, and believing it to be morphine. It's so screamingly obvious it's painful.


lower gravity effects wouldn't change the way one VERTICALLY balances weight.

I.E.
If you were carrying 200lbs on the back of your shoulders on earth, you WOULD lean slightly forward above your abdomen but you WOULDN'T be inclined to do it wile bending down both knees, unless you wanted to get crushed by the 200lbs.

Actually, this is quite doable on Earth. Not comfortable, but doable. I did it routinely in the Army. Besides being the M-249 SAW gunner for my squad, I also often had the priviledge of carrying cable spindles, as did others in my squad. Throw in a Dragon missile, and I routinely performed a variety of manuevers both horizontal and vertical while carrying in excess of 200 lb. pack mostly high-centered over my shoulders. Not to mention the 50 lb of weapon and ammo hanging on my neck, pulling me forward.

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 02:53 AM
Why would he need to lean forward????

because the mass is still the same.

Having the 200lbs on his back means that his CoM is thrown backwards, so he has to lean forwards, but because he is only 1/6 g, the weight of the that mass is only a 1/6 of what it should be allowing him to carry it far easier.

Maybe, if his muscles were impaired as well.

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 02:54 AM
If my total weight on the moon, including pack, was under a hundred pounds, I would be jumping higher and farther than I do on earth and I wouldn't be worried about going off balance.


So if you were on the moon you believe you would be able to perform in ways that you cannot here on earth. You would have the appearance of being stronger. Yet when you look at the video of an astronaut jumping up off the ground after falling over, or pulling himself up a ladder using his hands, it must be wires???

And the astronauts did jump higher on the moon then they could on earth. Watch the video where they jump up onto the first rung of the LM ladder.

Thank you for providing the answers to your own arguments.

And you don't have to take our word for it, you can perform the leaning experiment yourself. Get a back pack and load it with 200 lbs. Put it on, then have somebody measure how far forward you are leaning. Now get in a pool and make the same measurement. I think you'll find you have to lean farther forward in the pool.

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 02:55 AM
I'm not finding much substance or beef to these balancing arguments.

They just seem to be based on non science.

Spock, is that you?

Actually, with statements like this, I smell trolling. That, or a complete and utter lack of an even remedial grasp of science and basic principles. If so, and you're utterly unwilling to learn, and instead prefer to judge the science while acknowlegding you have no idea what you're actually talking about, you're probably better off with the hoax nutters.

As I said, I smell troll. Gonna watch from a distance for a bit ;)

Peter B
2007-Mar-16, 02:57 AM
If my total weight on the moon, including pack, was under a hundred pounds, I would be jumping higher and farther than I do on earth and I wouldn't be worried about going off balance.

It would be tempting to jump around and take advantage of the low gravity.

But if you fell the wrong way on landing, you might damage your spacesuit or the backpack. On the Moon you're a long way from a puncture repair kit. The astronauts were well aware of this, and avoided doing anything that might cause any damage.

In other words, they didn't do certain things, not because they couldn't, but because the consequences of something going wrong were severe.

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 02:57 AM
Maybe, if his muscles were impaired as well.

I'm not trying to be offensive, seriously, but do you recognize the difference between weight and mass?

Maksutov
2007-Mar-16, 02:59 AM
Maybe, if his muscles were impaired as well.Read up on acceleration, mass, force, and inertia, check the brakes on your car, and then get back to us.

Oh yeah, if possible, do some experimentation under water, like walking with similar distributions of mass. Something Aldrin had a hand in.

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 02:59 AM
altered video. This isn't "pure NASA" footage. If you are in the film industry and would contend it is, you should be stripped by your guild of any credentials.


Is the the official line on this video?
It's been doctored?

Ive seen it many times, in 5th grade science class etc.

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 03:01 AM
Is the the official line on this video?
It's been doctored?

Ive seen it many times, in 5th grade science class etc.

This particular reproduction of this video has. Or do you honestly think it came from NASA with DivX artifacts, fruity music, and Spanish commentary? :wall:

Occam
2007-Mar-16, 03:03 AM
Yeah - see my post #24
This guy lives under a bridge somewhere, I'm sure of it

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 03:03 AM
By the way:

Since you've "found some time", I asked you ten specific questions in post #48. You are required to provide a clear and precise answer for each of them. You have time to make ridiculous and uninformed judgements on doctored videos - you have time to answer my questions as per forum rules.

If you do not answer them immediately, I will report you to the mods and admin.

stutefish
2007-Mar-16, 03:03 AM
If my total weight on the moon, including pack, was under a hundred pounds, I would be jumping higher and farther than I do on earth and I wouldn't be worried about going off balance.
What makes you think that's what you'd be doing, on the moon?

Is it because your space suit would be very flexible and easy to move in?

Would it be all the free time you had, on the mission schedule, for this kind of thing?

Would it be just because of your natural playfulness, which would make you an ideal candidate for testing complex equipment under stressful and hazardous conditions?

Would it be on account of you had nothing to fear from any mishaps that might risk your equipment, the mission, or your life?

What part of your extensive knowledge of the lunar environment, the nature of lunar activities, and the technological capabilities of the day, leads you to believe that's how you'd behave, on the moon?

Do you even have such extensive knowledge of these things?

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 03:04 AM
Does anyone care to ask what my definition of the word "is" is?

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 03:05 AM
Does anyone care to ask what my definition of the word "is" is?

No. Nobody cares.

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 03:10 AM
What makes you think that's what you'd be doing, on the moon?


What part of your extensive knowledge of the lunar environment, the nature of lunar activities, and the technological capabilities of the day, leads you to believe that's how you'd behave, on the moon?

Do you even have such extensive knowledge of these things?

I know that the moons gravity is 1/6th of the earths.

I know that gravity is somewhat of a universal constant, as well as motion.

I haven't heard anything about rapid muscle atrophy in space, while I've heard that lack of physical activity will cause this.

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-16, 03:11 AM
Maybe, if his muscles were impaired as well.

No. It's a case of mass distrubution and weight. These are two different things, though as many people use them interchangably they can be confusing to a layman.

Mass is how much of a substance it there. It doesn't change regardless of where you are. Having nearly 62 kg on your back is like having a large kid on it. What happens when you give someone that weight a piggy back ride? You lean forwards to get the centre of mass over your feet, overwise you fall over backwards. This is the same for the astronauts, they had to lean forward to place the centre of mass of their body/PLSS over their feet.

They could bend their knees without collapsing because though the PLSS's mass was nearly 62 kg, its weight was only a 1/6th of what it is on Earth. Thus it had the same weight as a 10kg mass on Earth. About the same as a big bag of potatoes, not enough to drag them down.

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 03:12 AM
I know that gravity is somewhat of a universal constant, as well as motion.

I don't get this comment, could you explain it more?

stutefish
2007-Mar-16, 03:14 AM
I know that the moons gravity is 1/6th of the earths.

I know that gravity is somewhat of a universal constant, as well as motion.

I haven't heard anything about rapid muscle atrophy in space, while I've heard that lack of physical activity will cause this.
If that's all you know about lunar excursions, then I'm sure you'll understand when I choose not to trust you as an authority on lunar excursions.

stutefish
2007-Mar-16, 03:16 AM
Does anyone care to ask what my definition of the word "is" is?
I don't know: will your definition of the word "is" help us to trust you more as an expert on lunar exploration?

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 03:17 AM
I hear crickets chirping...

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 03:21 AM
It would be tempting to jump around and take advantage of the low gravity.

But if you fell the wrong way on landing, you might damage your spacesuit or the backpack. On the Moon you're a long way from a puncture repair kit. The astronauts were well aware of this, and avoided doing anything that might cause any damage.

In other words, they didn't do certain things, not because they couldn't, but because the consequences of something going wrong were severe.

In that case, this doesn't seem like the best use of resources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0

Gillianren
2007-Mar-16, 03:23 AM
I know that the moons gravity is 1/6th of the earths.

I know that gravity is somewhat of a universal constant, as well as motion.

I know you can't have something that's 1/6 of something in one sentence referred to as a universal constant in the next--I also know you can't have "somewhat" of a constant.

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 03:23 AM
If you people really think I'm trolling then I'll save my time and just stick to novice astronomyhttp://www.bautforum.com/images/smilies/wall.gif
:wall:

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-16, 03:24 AM
The "Lunar Grand Prix" was a specific test of the rover's handling capabilities. It was filmed so that the guys on the ground could see how it performed and and make any improvements required before the following missions. How is that a waste of resourses?

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-16, 03:25 AM
By the way, are you planning to conclude one issue before proceeding to the next, or jump around topics, never conceeding that your question has been answered?

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 03:26 AM
I know you can't have something that's 1/6 of something in one sentence referred to as a universal constant in the next--I also know you can't have "somewhat" of a constant.


So there is no real mass/gravity connection after all...... conspiracy?

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 03:26 AM
In that case, this doesn't seem like the best use of resources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0

Unless, of course, you had read the transcripts and knew that they were filming that on purpose so the engineers that designed the rover could see how it responded on the lunar surface, being as such that the TV camera was hard mounted to the rover and they had no other way to evaluate its performance.

You might read the transcript on this page (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.html) for more info...

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 03:27 AM
Tardis - answer post #48. You obviously have some time. This is the last time I ask this before I report you and this thread.

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 03:28 AM
So there is no real mass/gravity connection after all...... conspiracy?


That's what we call a strawman argument. You put the words into her mouth and then made your argument based on an invented stance.

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 03:28 AM
So there is no real mass/gravity connection after all...... conspiracy?

Oh, there is, you just completely do not understand it, Tardis, and this is where you are running into problems, like the rest of your posts.

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 03:29 AM
By the way, are you planning to conclude one issue before proceeding to the next, or jump around topics, never conceeding that your question has been answered?

I'm satisfied with your explanations, all except the effects of the moons gravity on the human body and saying that; that NASA film clip was doctored to look hoaxed.

Thanks

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 03:31 AM
I'm satisfied with your explanations, all except the effects of the moons gravity on the human body and saying that; that NASA film clip was doctored to look hoaxed.

Thanks

No one ever said the video you linked to was doctored to look hoaxed. It is simply a poor quality re-post, and has been altered/doctored to boot. I never said it was doctored to look hoaxed.

See "straw man" above.

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 03:31 AM
... that NASA film clip was doctored to look hoaxed.

Thanks

Another strawman. He said the film was doctored because it was not the original NASA footage. It contained artifacts and content that do not exist on the true footage. Will you please address the arguments at hand instead of inventing new arguments to refute?

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 03:36 AM
Unless, of course, you had read the transcripts and knew that they were filming that on purpose so the engineers that designed the rover could see how it responded on the lunar surface, being as such that the TV camera was hard mounted to the rover and they had no other way to evaluate its performance.

You might read the transcript on this page (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.html) for more info...

Truly a picture worth a thousand words.




I can say that gravity is a constant, and that the moons is 1/6th of earths. There's nothing wrong with that. What can you say to someone who tries to pick apart your wording when the point is dead obvious?

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 03:41 AM
Truly a picture worth a thousand words.




I can say that gravity is a constant, and that the moons is 1/6th of earths. There's nothing wrong with that. What can you say to someone who tries to pick apart your wording when the point is dead obvious?

I'm not sure what dead obvious point you're referring to, or even which word I picked apart there, so I'm confused here.

One other thing regarding the Grand Prix is that Mission Control did cut the whole experiement short due to time constraints. The mission timeline originally called for 4 minutes of footage, Mission Control cut them off after only a minute and five seconds. They knew what the best use of time was and made the call accordingly.



124:58:24 Duke: They want 4 minutes' worth, John. That was a minute and five (seconds). Maybe you can do it twice more.
124:58:30 Young: (Lecturing) Charlie!
124:58:31 Duke: Okay. Turn sharp.
124:58:34 Young: (Laughing) I have no desire to turn sharp. (Charlie laughs, too.) Okay, here's a sharpie.
124:58:39 Duke: Hey, that's great! (Pause) Man, those things...When those wheels really dig in, John...When you turn is when you get the rooster tail.
124:58:51 England: Charlie?
124:58:52 Duke: The suspension system on that thing is fantastic!
124:58:54 England: That sounds good. We sound like we probably got enough of the Grand Prix. We're willing to let you go on from here. Call that a (complete) Grand Prix.

stutefish
2007-Mar-16, 03:42 AM
Truly a picture worth a thousand words.




I can say that gravity is a constant, and that the moons is 1/6th of earths. There's nothing wrong with that. What can you say to someone who tries to pick apart your wording when the point is dead obvious?
If gravity is a constant, then why is it different from one place to another? A constant is usually constant, everywhere. If a thing is 1 in one place, and 1/6 in another place, it's usually called a variable.

I have a guess as to what you might be trying to say, but I'd rather not put words in your mouth. Maybe if you tried explaining what you meant, using different terminology?

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 03:53 AM
I'm satisfied with your explanations, <snip>

By the way, thanks for admitting that. It's not something most of the hoax believers or conscipiracists we get around here are willing to say. I know we can come off kind of snarky at times, but please realize that the arguments that are presented on the moon hoax have all been debunked by us in the past. That being said, we are ALWAYS willing to talk it out if posters are willing to listen to what we are saying. However, if your position is that, regardless of the evidence we present, there is no way you will be willing to accept the moon landings as fact then there's really not much point in us discussing it, except as a means of presenting evidence for non-posting members that might be on the fence about the whole thing and reading this thread.

Also, because I didn't say it yet, welcome to BAUT. I hope you enjoy your stay with us.

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 04:03 AM
[QUOTE=stutefish;948487]If gravity is a constant, then why is it different from one place to another? A constant is usually constant, everywhere. If a thing is 1 in one place, and 1/6 in another place, it's usually called a variable.

how prey tell can we predict how this v-a-r-i-a-ble will change from object to object. Is it a daunting task? or could a feeble mind like me understand it?

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 04:08 AM
That depends on what variable you are wanting to calculate. If you want to know if you can calculate the gravity of an object with a particular mass then I would assume, with some research, you could find out how it's done and run the numbers yourself. It's daunting without the knowledge, for sure.

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 04:09 AM
i appreciate your technical commentary about my lack of understanding.

My biggest quarrel, being me, is that the astronauts look like they're on strings, added to that, the Bart Sibel outtake and a few dozen other aspects of the missions and they appear to be hoaxed.

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 04:09 AM
how prey tell can we predict how this v-a-r-i-a-ble will change from object to object. Is it a daunting task? or could a feeble mind like me understand it?

A feeble mind can easily understand it.

And the antiquated anachronism is "Pray Tell", not "Prey".

And just as a head's up, using that phrase usually makes one look foolish ;)

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 04:11 AM
i appreciate your technical commentary about my lack of understanding.

My biggest quarrel, being me, is that the astronauts look like they're on strings, added to that, the Bart Sibel outtake and a few dozen other aspects of the missions and they appear to be hoaxed.

Will you please present these other few dozen?

VPCCD
2007-Mar-16, 04:13 AM
i appreciate your technical commentary about my lack of understanding.

My biggest quarrel, being me, is that the astronauts look like they're on strings, added to that, the Bart Sibel outtake and a few dozen other aspects of the missions and they appear to be hoaxed.

As for that bart sibrel outtake, I belive it has been compleatly debunked by svector.

tardis
2007-Mar-16, 04:14 AM
Are you recommending my banning from the board if i say It's too daunting?

Someone even suggested that I have to answer all your questions
http://www.bautforum.com/images/smilies/wall.gif
:wall:

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 04:16 AM
i appreciate your technical commentary about my lack of understanding.

My biggest quarrel, being me, is that the astronauts look like they're on strings, added to that, the Bart Sibel outtake and a few dozen other aspects of the missions and they appear to be hoaxed.

So how do you think the astronauts, walking in 1/6th gravity, should look? And why?

Also, if you're willing to post your other arguments we would be willing to discuss them with you. Many people here, myself included, have done huge amounts of research into the Apollo landings. We're willing to share our findings.

VPCCD
2007-Mar-16, 04:16 AM
Are you recommending my banning from the board if i say It's too daunting?

Someone even suggested that I have to answer all your questions
http://www.bautforum.com/images/smilies/wall.gif
:wall:

Huh? That made absolutely no sense :eh:

Maksutov
2007-Mar-16, 04:17 AM
If gravity is a constant, then why is it different from one place to another? A constant is usually constant, everywhere. If a thing is 1 in one place, and 1/6 in another place, it's usually called a variable.

how prey tell can we predict how this v-a-r-i-a-ble will change from object to object. Is it a daunting task? or could a feeble mind like me understand it?Well, it might because this discussion http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4879/iconbiggrin1kg.gif involves three different things, all of which include either the word "gravity" or "gravitation".

There's the universal gravitational constant (the big G): G = (6.6742 &#177; 0.0010) x 10-8 cm3 g-1 s-2.

There's the acceleration of gravity (a variable, g) as a function of mass and distance: g = G(m1/r2).

There's standard gravity (g = 9.80665 m&#183;s-2), which is a specific case of the second item, as related to a planet called Earth. This last is pretty much a constant, as the ISO and NIST have tightly-developed standards for it.

Mathematically each is distinct from the other but all interrelated.

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 04:17 AM
Are you recommending my banning from the board if i say It's too daunting?

Someone even suggested that I have to answer all your questions
http://www.bautforum.com/images/smilies/wall.gif
:wall:

That is entirely up to the mods and admins. I would be stepping out of my place to suggest anything there.

However, (and I am the one demanding answers to questions), it is in the rules of the forum that, in a nutshell, questions must be answered. And yes, people are banned for failing to do so. Again, whatever happens to you is not my place to speculate. However, I HAVE reported you for failing to answer questions.

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 04:21 AM
Tardis, let me introduce you to Rule #13, which you agreed to abide by when you signed up for this board. The bolding is mine:

13. Alternative Concepts and Conspiracy Theories

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, or think UFOs are among us, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream or Conspiracy Theory threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.

As with the other sections of the forum, we ask you to keep your topics about space and astronomy. We will close down any thread which doesn't have anything to do with space and astronomy immediately.

Kelfazin
2007-Mar-16, 04:21 AM
Are you recommending my banning from the board if i say It's too daunting?

Someone even suggested that I have to answer all your questions
http://www.bautforum.com/images/smilies/wall.gif
:wall:

Well this board has rules. If you're going to make claims regarding conspiracy theories and the like then you are required to respond to the questions concerning your claims and back up those claims with evidence. If you choose not to make those claims, then you are in no danger of being banned. If you make claims and provide no evidence, then the most likely result will be a warning from the mods and your thread (if you started the thread) closed. Continued lack of evidence while further posting on your claims will result in a ban. The thing is, if you are asked a question that you don't have an answer to, it is perfectly reasonable to respond "I don't know."

Van Rijn
2007-Mar-16, 04:48 AM
lower gravity effects wouldn't change the way one VERTICALLY balances weight.

I.E.
If you were carrying 200lbs on the back of your shoulders on earth, you WOULD lean slightly forward above your abdomen but you WOULDN'T be inclined to do it wile bending down both knees, unless you wanted to get crushed by the 200lbs.

So, you agree that they would need to lean forward to balance the mass. And at the same time, you've shown that they are doing something they wouldn't do on Earth (bent legs) because of the lower weight.

Think of it this way: If you had a balance scale with 1 kg blocks on each side, it would balance the same on the moon as the Earth. But if you put a 1 kg block on a spring scale, it would register 1 kg on Earth but only 1/6 kg on the moon. That's because on the moon, the 1 kg block is only applying a sixth of the force on the spring - the spring does not have to work nearly as hard to hold the block up. It's the same for the astronaut's legs.

Van Rijn
2007-Mar-16, 05:28 AM
I haven't heard anything about rapid muscle atrophy in space, while I've heard that lack of physical activity will cause this.

You certainly haven't heard anything in this discussion, because it isn't relevant to the short Apollo missions. Astronauts on long space station missions do suffer significant muscle atrophy despite exercise and have a period of reconditioning when they land. People that are bedridden for long periods have similar problems, which is why that is used to simulate some conditions of weightlessness on the ground.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-16, 05:46 AM
Why would he need to lean forward????

Because the backpack shifts his center of gravity backward. You lean forward to compensate.

I'm not finding much substance or beef to these balancing arguments.

You haven't given us anything to go on. "It looks to me like he's moving as if he were on a wire," is not a factual argument to which any kind of factual rebuttal can be made.

They just seem to be based on non science.

...says the artist.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-16, 05:59 AM
My biggest quarrel, being me, is that the astronauts look like they're on strings...

No. The astronauts move in a way you did not expect. In trying to account for their motion, you offer an explanation -- that they're being suspended. But that begs the question that your expectation is correct. It may not be. And unless you can show objective evidence of the actual strings (PLSS antennas don't count) and pulleys, your flyrig explanation doesn't, well, fly.

I look at the astronaut behavior and I see people struggling in restrictive clothing packing 360 pounds of mass and inertia, yet having only 60 pounds of gravitational force holding them down to provide traction. And what I see looks like what I expect to see.

...the Bart Sibel outtake

If only it were an outtake. In fact it was seen live by tens of millions of people. Sibrel didn't know that. And he wrongly believed no one would seen the raw footage and contradict him. How foolish he was. Even his attempt to set the record straight suspiciously omitted key footage.

...and a few dozen other aspects of the missions...

Aspects such as?

PhantomWolf
2007-Mar-16, 06:16 AM
Are you recommending my banning from the board if i say It's too daunting?

Saying you don't know is a perfectly acceptable answer to a question, unfortunately not a lot of people coming here use it.

how prey tell can we predict how this v-a-r-i-a-ble will change from object to object.

The acceleration caused by gravity is reasonably easy to work out. It's

ag = GM/r2

where G is the Gravitational constant, M is the mass of the object that is creating the gravity and r is the distance between the CoMs of the object being affected and the object causing the gravity.

You can find G, the mass and radius of the Earth and the moon pretty easily using Google, then just plug them into the formula.

My biggest quarrel, being me, is that the astronauts look like they're on strings

There are a number of situations where they fall and roll as they do (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16v_1491136.mpg), something that is impossible with "strings". Also the footage often shows a continuous 360&#176; Pan and then a tilt up, and there is gantry to hold wires. Add to that that they often come close enough to the camera that a harness or a wire would clearly be visible or move large distances all while on a continuous shot, again something that really isn't possible is attached to a wire.

added to that, the Bart Sibel outtake

Bart Sibrel is a lair, a thief and a charlatan.

His "outtake" footage is debunked Here (http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html) and Here (http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11) and in this series of five short videos. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc)

Much of what he calls an outtake, was in fact broadcast live, and he didn't know it. That shows how well he knows Apollo.

and a few dozen other aspects of the missions and they appear to be hoaxed.

What aspects, we're willing to go over them. Try looking through Clavius (or my page both linked above) and if you still have questions, feel free to ask.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-16, 06:38 AM
His "outtake" footage is debunked Here (http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html) and Here (http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11) and in this series of five short videos. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc)

Also here (http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny1.html), although I don't consider those pages finished or polished. And Svector has a much better discussion of the GET 30:28 telecast which Sibrel completely ignores and which thoroughly demolishes his pasted-up pictures theory.

Svector
2007-Mar-16, 07:01 AM
I'm satisfied with your explanations, all except the effects of the moons gravity on the human body and saying that; that NASA film clip was doctored to look hoaxed.
Thanks

Hey Italiano, you might gain a small measure of appreciation and/or respect among the group here by revealing how you acknowledged that Jack White's photo comparison of the South Massif (big mountain/small mountain) was in fact flawed, and potentially deceptive. It's no small accomplishment for an HB to admit being wrong in a public forum.

It may help change a few minds about your potential for absorbing the facts surrounding Apollo.

Just a thought.

Serenitude
2007-Mar-16, 09:10 AM
A successful manned mission to the moon offered a wonderful, pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of the citizens of America over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War.


The biggest reason why this outrageous unprecedented hoax worked is that a very large percentage of the population NEVER questions 'authority' or think about the possible failings, short sightedness or manipulative m.o. of authority

I can feel something, just on the tip of my tongue...

OH YEAH. Sibrel and his disciples like ole' Tardis here want to have their cake and eat it too. So, the mission was to distract a completely complacent sheeple mass from somehow rising from their braindead, lethargic, government-induced state and somehow simultaneously being on the verge of revolt in disgust and disagreement with then-current politics.

There's a word for this...

Maksutov
2007-Mar-16, 09:14 AM
[edit]There's a word for this...I don't know the word, but there was a sentence for it in another thread:
Originally Posted by Proselenean http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=947776#post947776)
P.S Please tell me in which forum I can write without being debunked.
Come to think of it, the word is probably "self-contradiction".

Nicolas
2007-Mar-16, 09:30 AM
Just a remark on the leaning forward thing:

You have to lean forward to get the c.g. of the backpack forward, towards a point where the combined c.g. of man + backpack is witin the stability region of the man (inside the contact area encompassed by his feet). You'd have to do that both on earth and on the moon in order to be stable.

The reason you'd fall over on the earth is not static stability, because that's identical, but your muscles being unable to keep that posture on earth. On earth, on the moon, in a pool... you'd have to bend over just as much to get into a stable region, as centre of gravity and centre of mass do coincide in uniform gravity fields as exist on the moon, on the earth, under water, so that part of the story is identical no matter where you are. (I'm looking at static situations here, so no sudden motion inducing inertial effects!)

The "trick" of the story is in being unable to bend that far forward with such a heavy backpack on earth. You would fall over on earth because your upper body woud be pushed towards you legs by the weight of the backpack, causing the cg to move further forward, causing you to flip over in an embarrassing foetus like position. On the moon, your belly/back muscles are strong enough to keep your body in the required posture due to the decreased weight and moment of the backpack. Your muscles aren't suddenly getting stronger, the load they carry gets a lot lighter.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Mar-16, 11:13 AM
Here's a point I don't think anybody has made.

If you were faking the moonlanding, it would make sense to have the astronauts suspended from cables while they are walking about on the moon's surface, because that way you could get them to bounce around in a way that mimics the effect of 1/6 gravity.

But why would you use cables for the scene where the astronaut is climbing the ladder? I want to scream this one: WHY ? How is climbing a ladder in 1/6 gravity going to look different to climbing a ladder in Earth normal gravity? This bit doesn't need faking!

Jason Thompson
2007-Mar-16, 11:57 AM
With the spacesuit on they couldn't climb a ladder as they could in 1G, and they still have the difference of mass v weight to contend with. On top of that, whether walking or climbing a ladder, their muscles, adapted for use in 1G, will work differently in lower gravity. They can hold up their whole weight with one arm easily, for instance.

Also, the lower rung being three feet up would pose a problem in 1G with that spacesuit on....

Paul Beardsley
2007-Mar-16, 12:49 PM
But if it was being faked the spacesuit wouldn't need to weigh very much.

In my opinion, everything in that "incriminating" bit of footage could have been done without a suspending cable, regardless of whether it was faked on Earth or really filmed on the moon.

SpitfireIX
2007-Mar-16, 01:16 PM
Also here (http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny1.html), although I don't consider those pages finished or polished.

Excellent start on reviewing **'s film, Jay, but at the risk of having this thread wander OT, I'd like to give you some constructive criticism on the Titanic section, if I may.

Although Olympic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Olympic) never sank, she was involved in three spectacular collisions. Near the beginning of her career, before Titanic was even launched, Olympic collided with the Royal Navy cruiser HMS Hawke. Two of her watertight compartments were flooded, and one of her shafts was bent, but, miraculously, no one was killed (only because the many second-class passengers whose cabins were demolished were all at lunch). The RN inquiry blamed Olympic for the collision, finding that her great bulk had caused the smaller Hawke to be sucked helplessly into the liner's side. Therefore, one so inclined could make the argument that God started with a "shot across White Star's bow" (so to speak), as a warning against the line's "unsinkable" hubris. Also, Titanic's maiden voyage was delayed (until well into the iceberg season) as resources were diverted from her construction to repair Olympic.

Near the end of her career, in 1934, Olympic rammed and sank the Nantucket lightship, killing seven of the lightship's crew.

Also, during WWI, while acting as a troopship, Olympic deliberately rammed and sank a U-Boat (the only known instance of a merchant vessel's so doing during the war), though obviously this does not qualify as an accident.

Britannic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Britannic) was not built as a replacement for Titanic; rather, White Star had intended from the beginning to have three Olympic-class liners in transatlanic service, in order to be able to provide weekly sailings in each direction. However, as Harland and Wolff had to combine three existing slipways into two larger ones in order to accomodate the class, Britannic's construction could not begin until Olympic had been launched. [edited to add: Britannic was also delayed by modifications that increased her watertight integrity and her lifeboat capacity, after the loss of Titanic].

Britannic was originally to be named Gigantic, however, after the loss of Titanic, White Star reconsidered the "large" theme for the class's names, and chose Britannic as a patriotic gesture as war appeared imminent. As a side note, all of White Star's passenger liners' names followed the convention of ending in -ic (e.g., Baltic, Arabic). Cunard's liners' names all ended in -ia, (e.g., Carpathia, Athenia).

There is some speculation that Britannic may have been carrying munitions, which those so inclined might well consider to have brought down the wrath of God upon her. Minor violations of the Hague Convention on hospital ships (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1907i.htm) (such as transporting combat medical personnel to a war zone) have been documented; however, no direct, credible evidence that Britannic was carrying munitions has ever emerged (not that that would stop ** from claiming that she was, of course :D).

One final side note--nurse Violet Jessop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Jessop), who survived Britannic's sinking, was a former White Star stewardess who had not only survived the sinking of Titanic, but had also been aboard Olympic during the collision with HMS Hawke.

Nicolas
2007-Mar-16, 01:34 PM
On another side note, Buzz Aldrin was on one of the expeditions to the Titanic.

Jason Thompson
2007-Mar-16, 01:42 PM
But if it was being faked the spacesuit wouldn't need to weigh very much.

In my opinion, everything in that "incriminating" bit of footage could have been done without a suspending cable, regardless of whether it was faked on Earth or really filmed on the moon.

But they can't adjust their own weight, which is a substantial component of what they are working against when climbing. When climbing a ladder they are constantly pushing upwards against gravity, and they can't just climb normally. I can honestly say I've never seen anyone climb a ladder like an Apollo astronaut in 1G, and the descent is obviously done in lower G.

SpitfireIX
2007-Mar-16, 01:53 PM
Aha! Absolute proof that there was a conspiracy involving Titanic--clearly Buzz was involved in hiding the evidence. :D :D

Actually, there are conspiracy theories surrounding Titanic (are we surprised?). Very briefly (to avoid a non-space conspiracy discussion), some have claimed that Olympic was disguised as Titanic and deliberately sunk, in order to collect the insurance for the new Titanic, rather than the badly damaged Olympic. This theory was conclusively disproven when photographs of one of Titanic's propellers taken by a submersible showed Titanic's hull number thereon. See here (http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_conspiracy_theory.shtml) for more information, for those so inclined.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Mar-16, 02:13 PM
But they can't adjust their own weight, which is a substantial component of what they are working against when climbing. When climbing a ladder they are constantly pushing upwards against gravity, and they can't just climb normally. I can honestly say I've never seen anyone climb a ladder like an Apollo astronaut in 1G, and the descent is obviously done in lower G.
To check we're not talking at cross-purposes here...

Jason, I am pretty certain that you and I are agreed that the ladder-climbing sequence of the Youtube footage was genuinely filmed on the moon.

Now, for the moment, let us consider a hypothetical situation in which the moonlandings were faked. My question is, do you believe it would be necessary to use a cable in the filming of that scene? Or do you think it would be enough for a reasonably fit man - a ballet dancer, say - to use the movements of his body to suggest he is not in a 1g environment?

I favour the latter. There's a lot you can do when you've got the option to grip the ladder and your muscle movements are concealed by the suit. And besides, you'd have to detach from the cable when you go in through the hatch.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-16, 02:31 PM
Hey Italiano...

Tardis is Italiano?

sts60
2007-Mar-16, 03:13 PM
Why, if tardis is so sure there are strings and pulleys, can't he simply show us the strings and pulleys? Why is the only "string" he indicates the location and size of the PLSS antenna?

Jason Thompson
2007-Mar-16, 05:11 PM
To check we're not talking at cross-purposes here...

Jason, I am pretty certain that you and I are agreed that the ladder-climbing sequence of the Youtube footage was genuinely filmed on the moon.

Completely 100%


Now, for the moment, let us consider a hypothetical situation in which the moonlandings were faked.

OK. It hurts, but OK... ;)


My question is, do you believe it would be necessary to use a cable in the filming of that scene? Or do you think it would be enough for a reasonably fit man - a ballet dancer, say - to use the movements of his body to suggest he is not in a 1g environment?

No, I believe it would be necessary to use a rig of some kind. I don't see how a man, however fit, could reproduce the elements of that movement that are the result of being in low gravity accurately. The motion is too fluid, even accounting for the fact that his muscles are hidden by the suit.


And besides, you'd have to detach from the cable when you go in through the hatch.

That's a much better and more convincing point, to my mind. That clip conveniently cuts out before the astronaut actually goes into the LM. However, we know it actually continues beyond that point and shows him going through the hatch with absolutely no sign of stopping to remove the wire harness he is supposed to be hanging from.

JayUtah
2007-Mar-16, 06:07 PM
I'd like to give you some constructive criticism on the Titanic section, if I may.

Please do. It's off-topic here, and probably off-topic in the review. But as long as I'm going to address Sibrel's reference to Titanic I'd probably better do it from a defensible position.

The review is currently 8 pages long, and I'd like to tighten it to 4. I haven't finished viewing Svector's responses to Sibrel and Percy, but I'll tentatively say that I'm the first one to review all of Sibrel's film. I think that's important because while we can certainly take him to task for his sloppy, deceptive handling of the Apollo TV downlinks, we can (and should) also criticize him for the manipulative way in which he supplied it.

As I've said before, Sibrel spends 30 minutes preparing the viewer to interpret his smoking gun in exactly the right way. One way to review his film is to sever the smoking gun from the carefully laid rhetorical context and take it for what it is. But someone who sees Sibrel's video and then reads a review isn't necessarily willing to follow you there. So another way to review his film is to reveal the rhetorical manipulation for what it is, and then to address the smoking gun. That's the method I've chosen, and it means we have to deal with stuff we might consider off-topic.

The Titanic section of my review aims toward two objectives: to show how sloppy Bart Sibrel is with facts (even if they are irrelevant facts), and to show the inconsistencies in his moralizing. Obviously I can't do the first effectively if I'm also sloppy with the facts, so off we go.

Therefore, one so inclined could make the argument that God started with a "shot across White Star's bow" (so to speak)...

Many philosophical arguments can be made. That's essentially my point. Bart Sibrel cuts one swath through the available evidence, cherry-picking what supports his desired conclusion that God punished the hubris of Titanic by sinking her. I can cut a different swath and arrive at a completely different conclusion.

One can argue that big, bad Olympic, which was at fault in the two accidental collisions and which aggressively and maliciously rammed a warship, should have been the target of God's wrath, not the relatively innocent Titanic.

Britannic was not built as a replacement for Titanic...

Okay, I'll buy that. Now I wonder what I read that suggested it had.

There is some speculation that Britannic may have been carrying munitions, which those so inclined might well consider to have brought down the wrath of God upon her.

Yes, that may be true. But it is indisputable fact that she carried and ministered to wounded soldiers and was considered a non-combatant (unlike Olympic). So we balance speculation against fact.

All things considered, the two Olympic-class liners which had the happiest reputations died ugly deaths. The one that misbehaved lived a long, prosperous life and died honorably of old age. If God is trying to tell us engineers something by that, he's sure sending a mixed message.

Fazor
2007-Mar-16, 06:15 PM
Jay, That's the same message his "messenger" Billy Joel is trying to teach you; "Only the good die young".

Sorry, I love that song, hadta say it. I haven't seen the film in question (there's plenty I haven't seen, eh?) but from the sounds of it, is he really trying to say that God sunk the Titanic (and apparently the Britanic) because of the company's "immoral ethics"? I'd like to see how he tries to tie that into an Apollo coverup...

JayUtah
2007-Mar-16, 06:29 PM
is he really trying to say that God sunk the Titanic (and apparently the Britanic) because of the company's "immoral ethics"?

No. He cites Titanic and the Biblical Tower of Babel as two examples of humankind's hubris and arrogance, and the fates of each as God's retribution for that arrogance. Sibrel's condemnation isn't limited to the White Star Line; it's aimed at all of mankind. Apollo, he suggests, is just another example of that same arrogance that got us into trouble in those other two cases. How dare humans believe they can travel to the moon!

He hammers home the point differently a few minutes into the film: he intercuts pictures of starving children with the Apollo 11 launch sequence. Such wantonly emotional manipulation really grinds my gears.

Fazor
2007-Mar-16, 06:33 PM
He hammers home the point differently a few minutes into the film: he intercuts pictures of starving children with the Apollo 11 launch sequence. Such wantonly emotional manipulation really grinds my gears.

Yes and such desperate attempts to link completely unrelated issues really suggests how weak his ideas are. Oh well, just shows that if you shout loud enough *someone* will believe you.

publiusr
2007-Mar-16, 06:57 PM
People spend more on alcohol than space.

Fazor
2007-Mar-16, 07:05 PM
People spend more on alcohol than space.

I wish to dispute this (irrelevant) fact. I spend probably $20-$40 a month (tops) on alcohol. My mortgage + utilities is around $750/month. my half-acre of space costs much more than my beer and wine purchases (and occasional whiskey or rum to go with my cola). :)

I don't think the average person spends *any* money on space (does NASA get tax dollars? I don't really know how they're funded).

NEOWatcher
2007-Mar-16, 07:47 PM
I wish to dispute this (irrelevant) fact. I spend probably $20-$40 a month (tops) on alcohol. My mortgage + utilities is around $750/month. my half-acre of space costs much more than my beer and wine purchases (and occasional whiskey or rum to go with my cola). :)

I don't think the average person spends *any* money on space (does NASA get tax dollars? I don't really know how they're funded).

I know there's a joke in there somewhere... but take 0.7% of your 2006 tax return "total tax" line, and that is roughly what you spend on NASA.

Fazor
2007-Mar-16, 09:25 PM
If you're referring to the "do they get tax money", no I really didn't know (although i was right by thinking that they did). But I know they also do a lot of work for other companies that need thier expertice and skills (and technology) and I don't know if the bulk of thier funding is tax-based or from these kind of jobs or what. Never really looked into it ('caus I don't really care) :) They could get thier money from Columbian drug cartels, as long as they keep up the good work hehe.

On a side note, i still don't think the tax money counts as the average person paying for space. You're paying the government. They spend it on space. That's like saying your mortgage payment funds prostitution 'caus some banker somewhere is paying for a "date" :)

JayUtah
2007-Mar-16, 10:00 PM
Why, if tardis is so sure there are strings and pulleys, can't he simply show us the strings and pulleys?

Because conspiracism doesn't understand why circular arguments don't work.

In conspiracism you observe X, and you hypothesize it's caused by A because A implies X as everyone knows. When asked how you know A is the proper hypothesis, you say (duh) that it's because you can observe X. X is the evidence of A. (Conspiracists don't understand that you can't use the observation you're trying to explain as evidence of the correctness of the explanation.)

If you dispute that A is the explanation, often you get indignant dismissals: how dare you be so arrogant and irrational as to suggest A doesn't imply X!

Usually A is proposed in contrast some other official hypothesis B. But everyone knows that B can't really cause X. B would obviously cause some completely different phenomenon Y.

If you're lucky you get one of those people who literally can't distinguish fact from believe, whereupon A is so obviously correct that anyone who can't see otherwise is just blind.

papageno
2007-Mar-16, 10:06 PM
Hey Italiano...

Oy now, what's that supposed to mean!

Svector
2007-Mar-16, 11:37 PM
As I've said before, Sibrel spends 30 minutes preparing the viewer to interpret his smoking gun in exactly the right way.


And he's very good at it. In case there is any doubt left, the narrator seals the deal with her presupposition, "if they genuinely went to the moon, WHY would they be faking any part of it?". This sneaky trick essentially makes up any remaining undecided viewer's minds for them.


The Titanic section of my review aims toward two objectives: to show how sloppy Bart Sibrel is with facts

I'd like to suggest that you call attention to the inaccurate bluescreen date references made in the video. Sibrel especially emphasizes the date stamp that reads day "200", incorrectly referring to it as July 20, "when they should have been landing on the moon". Day 200 of 1969 is July 19, not July 20.

He also misstates the dates of the TV transmissions, saying they took place on July 18, 19 and 20, when we know they happened on the 16th and 17th.

I wanted to mention these errors in my vid but could never really find a place for them. As long as you're calling the accuracy of his research into question, you may as well use all the ammo at your disposal. :lol:

Maksutov
2007-Mar-16, 11:41 PM
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
As I've said before, Sibrel spends 30 minutes preparing the viewer to interpret his smoking gun in exactly the right way.And he's very good at it. In case there is any doubt left, the narrator seals the deal with her presupposition, "if they genuinely went to the moon, WHY would they be faking any part of it?". This sneaky trick essentially makes up any remaining undecided viewer's minds for them.Have you stopped beating your wife?

Svector
2007-Mar-16, 11:42 PM
Oy now, what's that supposed to mean!

It's meant to identify a contributor. That's his screen name.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Mar-16, 11:44 PM
Have you stopped beating your wife?
No, I continue to outrun her in almost every race.

(Seriously, I know what you mean. It's infuriating.)

Svector
2007-Mar-16, 11:45 PM
Have you stopped beating your wife?

Yes. Immediately after the divorce papers were filed. It all worked out though...we split everything 50/50.

She got the inside of the house. I got the outside.

Maksutov
2007-Mar-16, 11:49 PM
Yes. Immediately after the divorce papers were filed. It all worked out though...we split everything 50/50.

She got the inside of the house. I got the outside.Sounds familiar. Ours was an even split, too. 100/0, 100 for her and...well, she saw it as even.

I still miss her, but my aim's getting better.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

JayUtah
2007-Mar-16, 11:53 PM
This sneaky trick essentially makes up any remaining undecided viewer's minds for them.

Yes, this is the dilemma that plagues a lot of investigation. At any given instant, everyone is guilty of something. Usually the things of which we're guilty (e.g., um, posting to BAUT from work) are relatively minor peccadillos for which we would probably be forgiven. But when attention is focused on us for more serious suspicions, those peccadillos take on new significance.

I suspect most people at some time have cheated on their income taxes, at least in small amounts. If that's all someone can say about you, you're probably okay. But if you should suddenly be investigated for widespread embezzlement or securities fraud, even if you're innocent of those charges you probably would wish at that point that you'd done your taxes honestly.

I remember investigating manufacturing and assembly mishaps. The line workers weren't supposed to have food or drink on the line, but they did anyway. Even though the soda cans stashed in the workbenches had absolutely nothing to do with the incidents, the workers hid them uneasily any time we had to investigate. If I were less skilled, I might interpret that uneasiness not as general guilt over peccadillos but instead as serious guilt over some culpable action that led to a mishap. And I'd be chasing phantoms and not getting to the real root cause.

Sibrel implies that nothing amiss should be found in any record of a true event. And he does this so that any semblance of impropriety can be waved around as some sort of smoking gun. The real world simply doesn't work that way. Are there skeletons in NASA's closet? Of course -- there are skeletons in everyone's closets. Are they material to some question? Only if you can show they are. The mere presence of abstract impropriety is not proof of some specific claim.

I'd like to suggest that you call attention to the inaccurate bluescreen date references made in the video.

Thanks; I should. The reason I don't yet is because I didn't know about it. You discovered it. I say that because people pay me a lot of undeserved credit for others' work and for group efforts.

Svector
2007-Mar-17, 12:21 AM
I'd like to suggest that you call attention to the inaccurate bluescreen date references made in the video.

Thanks; I should. The reason I don't yet is because I didn't know about it. You discovered it. I say that because people pay me a lot of undeserved credit for others' work and for group efforts.

Actually that one belongs to Satweavers. I didn't even notice the day numbers the first time I saw those date codes. He did however, and subsequently got into a long-winded debate with our friend Jarrah W., who to this day, swears that day 198 is July 18th, not the 17th. It was a whole ordeal on YT. I even made a short video about it titled "What Day was July 17 1969?" :lol:

At any rate, it would almost be forgiveable, but Sibrel beats us over the head with the "on July 20th, they were SUPPOSED TO BE LANDING ON THE MOON" fallacy more than once, so I think it's probably worthy of an honorable mention.

papageno
2007-Mar-17, 10:28 AM
It's meant to identify a contributor. That's his screen name.
Ah, that's explains it.

tardis
2007-Mar-18, 08:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGMEn0FFQvw


Why; when these astronauts jump up, do they not tip backwards, they're supposed to be balancing a large mass on their shoulders yet they only lean slightly forward.
At 1 min 10 in this video; the astronaut in the foreground appears to have his weight lifted inconsistently as if being held by wire.

Questions regarding my hypothesis:
-Are any of you paid researchers in the area of the Apollo missions?
-Are any of you affiliated organisation which is affiliated with or works within the criminal justice system?

Gillianren
2007-Mar-18, 09:13 PM
Questions regarding my hypothesis:
-Are any of you paid researchers in the area of the Apollo missions?
-Are any of you affiliated organisation which is affiliated with or works within the criminal justice system?

Speaking for myself, no and no. Speaking for most of the people here, no and no. It doesn't change the science.

Laguna
2007-Mar-18, 09:15 PM
Questions regarding my hypothesis:
-Are any of you paid researchers in the area of the Apollo missions?
-Are any of you affiliated organisation which is affiliated with or works within the criminal justice system?

This is getting funny...
1. No, no one here gets paid for his research regarding the Apollo missions.
2. We (the company I work for) are just trying to sell a new telecommunications system to the Bundeskriminalamt (German National Criminal Intelligence Service). My uncle works in a prison, my neighbor too...
Does that qualify me? For whatever?
Oh I forgot, my neighbor on the other side is judge at a local court.

SpitfireIX
2007-Mar-18, 09:16 PM
Are any of you paid researchers in the area of the Apollo missions?

Yes, I'm a paid disinformation agent. My specific job here is to debunk Pearl Harbor and JFK conspiracy theories, in order to make the Apollo Hoax and September 11 conspiracy theories appear less credible.

Laguna
2007-Mar-18, 09:22 PM
Ok, except of Spitfire IX. He is a paid disinformation agent.
But you will never ever get me to admit that I am too, that my checks come always in time and that I am specialized on the 911 conspiracy.
This is why I am really angry about that **** decision to ban discussions about 911 from this board.
The checks are significantly smaller now.

tardis
2007-Mar-18, 09:31 PM
It's cool how, even on a science board, people still include personal attacks and lumping all conspiracies together to achieve some watershed reaction.

Nicolas
2007-Mar-18, 09:32 PM
Why; when these astronauts jump up, do they not tip backwards, they're supposed to be balancing a large mass on their shoulders yet they only lean slightly forward.

Because they tip over far enough such that the amount of backwards tipping is small enough to stay balanced during the jump and landing.

Yes, that answer is simplistic and straightforward. But you can't say more to it. Unless one can show they are not leaning forward enough, nothing more can be said about it without shifting the burden of proof.


Questions regarding my hypothesis:
-Are any of you paid researchers in the area of the Apollo missions?
-Are any of you affiliated organisation which is affiliated with or works within the criminal justice system?
Even if that was a "yes" on both accounts, how would that change facts? We're talking about facts here. Man did or did not land on the moon, no matter how much I'd be paid to say one or the other. But to answer them, no. I'm a student.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Mar-18, 09:33 PM
Why; when these astronauts jump up, do they not tip backwards, they're supposed to be balancing a large mass on their shoulders yet they only lean slightly forward.
Here is a question I put to you: How far forward do you think they should be leaning in order to avoid tipping backwards?

You are required to answer this question. It is acceptable for you to say, "I do not know," in which case you must withdraw the objection. If you do not make any attempt to answer, I shall report you. I am sorry for the threatening tone, but I gather there have been several questions put to you which you have failed to answer.


At 1 min 10 in this video; the astronaut in the foreground appears to have his weight lifted inconsistently as if being held by wire.
The video is taking a long time to load on my PC. When it does, I will examine it.


Questions regarding my hypothesis:
-Are any of you paid researchers in the area of the Apollo missions?
What do you mean by this? Do you mean historians paid to document the moon landings? Or do you mean investigators paid to spot inconsistencies in the official record?

I think you need to appreciate where most of us are coming from. The evidence that we did, in fact, go to the moon is overwhelming - and frankly, the word "overwhelming" is an understatement. That does not mean we are closed-minded. We will look at evidence that, if proved to be reliable, would overturn our world-views. However, the evidence offered in favour of the moon hoax has generally been trivially easy to refute.


-Are any of you affiliated organisation which is affiliated with or works within the criminal justice system?
Do you mean members of an organisation which is affiliated with or works within the criminal justice system?

To answer your question, I am not, although I have worked with people who are, and my next-door-but-one neighbour worked in the prison probationary system.

Why do you ask?

Laguna
2007-Mar-18, 09:33 PM
1. What personal attacks?
2. What is a watershed reaction? Can't find that expression in my dictionary.

Nicolas
2007-Mar-18, 09:34 PM
It's cool how, even on a science board, people still include personal attacks and lumping all conspiracies together to achieve some watershed reaction.

It's strange how answering whether we're paid disinfo agents is considered a personal attack, while suggesting it is not.

So far you've hypothised we're paid disinfo agents and scientists lie about Apollo. Maybe it's time to review your way of dealing with people on this board. And please, please refrain from the standard "but I'm only asking questions" rock to hide behind.

tardis
2007-Mar-18, 09:35 PM
People that believe that factions of our government tell lies or withhold truth are paranoid right? They can only spread chaos, right? Why should anyone ask questions, right?

Nicolas
2007-Mar-18, 09:37 PM
Can you please not put words in our mouths, steer away from the straw men, and keep the discussion at level.

Laguna
2007-Mar-18, 09:41 PM
People that believe that factions of our government tell lies or withhold truth are paranoid right? They can only spread chaos, right? Why should anyone ask questions, right?
And when I answer your questions you say I am a liar and a paid disinfo agent.
Tell me, would you tolerate if someone approches you on the street and yells liar at you? Do you take this as an appropriate behaviour.

ZappBrannigan
2007-Mar-18, 09:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGMEn0FFQvw


Why; when these astronauts jump up, do they not tip backwards, they're supposed to be balancing a large mass on their shoulders yet they only lean slightly forward.
At 1 min 10 in this video; the astronaut in the foreground appears to have his weight lifted inconsistently as if being held by wire.
I'm afraid my untrained eye isn't seeing the same thing as your untrained eye. I don't see anything that would indicate wire work. The center of gravity they're exhibiting is much too low for a wire mounted on the top of their suits.

By the way, at what point during the 30-year hoax preparation (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=946817&postcount=34) do you think they shot this part?