PDA

View Full Version : Another site review request to Clavius



JayUtah
2003-Aug-06, 06:13 AM
http://members.shaw.ca/freecable/nasa.htm

kucharek
2003-Aug-06, 06:21 AM
If this guy would go through Clavius, he could write his review himself. Nothing new in his claims, the old recycled rubbish on and on.

[...]Neil A. Armstrong, commander; Michael Collins, command module pilot; and Edwin E. Aldrin Jr., lunar module pilot.

None of which can be contacted for interview.

I see Neil and Buzz interviewed all the time. Only Collins seems to really live a very private life, but he told about his reasons many years ago in his book "Carrying the Fire".

What is funny is, that now more and more arguments like "impossible to compress streaming video with the technology available that time" appear. This just highlights how narrow minded those people are. Can't look further (back) than a few years. I feel pushed to believe that I was born in a cave.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Aug-06, 06:21 AM
The Flag that was planted in the lunar surface can not be seen by the most powerful earth telescope as well as the Hubble Space telescope

Well, that could be because it is impossible for the Hubble to see anything that close.


As well in 1969 no Airplanes had the ability to reach the high altitudes necessary to simulate weightlessness Aprox, 40,000 - 50,000 feet.


Doesn't that null their other "point"?


Nasa cannot provide a video of astronauts in total weightlessness for over a period of 1 minute " The maximum total time a aircraft can free fall out of the Earths atmosphere simulating weightlessness " this is how these films are made with weightlessness.


Not worth your time.

kucharek
2003-Aug-06, 06:30 AM
BTW, that website has a forum attached. Maybe we should party there?

http://members.shaw.ca/freecable/disc5_toc.htm

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Aug-06, 06:35 AM
http://members.shaw.ca/freecable/restricted.htm

Oh, look at that: a motive for spewing bunk.

freddo
2003-Aug-06, 06:36 AM
The Flag that was planted in the lunar surface can not be seen by the most powerful earth telescope as well as the Hubble Space telescope

Well, that could be because it is impossible for the Hubble to see anything that close.


Well, it can image the Moon - it's not that close... However it can't resolve any objects smaller than a sport stadium - so your point remains valid (in a way)..




Nasa cannot provide a video of astronauts in total weightlessness for over a period of 1 minute " The maximum total time a aircraft can free fall out of the Earths atmosphere simulating weightlessness " this is how these films are made with weightlessness.

Not worth your time.

So true... Thats just a totally stupid thing to say... He probably can't find any on the web longer than a minute - as the web is obviously the extent of his existence.

Musashi
2003-Aug-06, 06:37 AM
Well, it's not really a site, more of a page. But that is a good thing.

Second, I am not sure if any of his stuff is even original. The assertion at the bottom of the boxed portion makes me think that the author is parroting Mr. Rene. But even if it isn't, it is poorly worded.


None of which can be contacted for interview. Most likely due to there confidentiality agreement which they were paid big money not to talk about.

Not concerned with the spelling error...but the second sentence makes it sound as if he has conclusive knowledge of a confidentiality agreement. I do not have any experience interviewing astronauts, so I do not know how hard it is to get them to agree to an interview. However, they have talked about their experinces plenty. Maybe they are either; a) tired of talking about it, or b) don't want to waste time talking to someone like this guy.

Next, his link points to an interesting read... it talks about the British photographer David Persey and his unwilingness to believe that we went to the Moon blah blah blah.

His reasons we didn't go:

There is the calculator theory. The "how come we can't see things on the moon even with the most powerful telescope ever to be created in the entire universe yes I am talking about the Hubble!" theory. The impossible technology theory. The "too many lights" theory. Wait for it... the waving flag theory. And others.

I think I could eliminate reasons 1,2,3,5,6,9, and 10. I am sure with a little research I could get rid of 4 and 11. I don't know what the point of 7 is. And 8 is a neat theory but not a reason.

Overall, I don't see anything new here. I think if I were publishing a site that I wanted reviewed, I would clean up my grammar a little. So of the reasons are a poorly worded.

So, I think it is too small to properly be called a "site," needs some clean up work, and is mostly devoid of content. For this page to have any credability, he needs to delve much deeper into his theories and explain why he thinks they are true and how they back up his overall idea.

Musashi
2003-Aug-06, 06:39 AM
Man, you guys are quick! When I started writing my post, I was the only one!

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Aug-06, 06:43 AM
Well, it can image the Moon - it's not that close... However it can resolve any objects smaller than a sport stadium - so your point remains valid (in a way)..

It can image the moon? Well, shoot! I've just learned something! Thanks! :)

freddo
2003-Aug-06, 06:48 AM
Just posted to that little forum... (http://members.shaw.ca/freecable/_disc5/00000004.htm)

Tried to keep it inconspicuous, will see what he says!!


Man, you guys are quick! When I started writing my post, I was the only one!

Heh, it's fun to jump on a topic.. that's all i can say. :wink:

freddo
2003-Aug-06, 06:51 AM
However it can resolve any objects smaller

I definitely meant CAN'T there!!! Before all the sticklers take a dig... :lol:

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Aug-06, 06:51 AM
You were so polite... so civil... well done! I wouldn't be able to be so... detached from my annoyance...

freddo
2003-Aug-06, 06:53 AM
You were so polite... so civil... well done! I wouldn't be able to be so... detached from my annoyance...

Debunking is fun! My tactic is to start off very supportive - and get them to change or remove their arguments one by one - on the grounds that it hurts their overall argument.
Keep doing this with the little things, and eventually they don't have any argument left! Well that's the plan anyway - woo-woos have a habit of getting nasty real fast. :lol:

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Aug-06, 06:54 AM
But for that to work, you need to be able to not run away when they become too annoying. I can't do that. I have no patience for woo-woos. But I'm trying to learn...

Musashi
2003-Aug-06, 06:56 AM
I'll lend you vsome of my patience. :D

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Aug-06, 06:57 AM
Thanks! It'll get used up pretty quick though... do you know how to counterfeit it?

Musashi
2003-Aug-06, 07:01 AM
Yeah, just smile and don't say anything. :wink:

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Aug-06, 07:02 AM
*Smiles and doesn't say anything*

:P :wink:

freddo
2003-Aug-06, 07:07 AM
But for that to work, you need to be able to not run away when they become too annoying. I can't do that. I have no patience for woo-woos. But I'm trying to learn...

It's not easy - I'll grant you that... But look at it this way...

If they're getting angry with you - become even more polite... In person, and over the internet - this is absolutely the best way to infuriate someone - and you've done nothing wrong at all!!! =D>

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Aug-06, 07:14 AM
I find it's easier to do in person. For some reason, being able to see the other person angry calms me down. I can see that I'm getting to them. I can pick up on the subtleties in their actions and posture. But over the internet, their emotions are harder to judge. I'll just have to learn other signs of emotion. I'll get there, don't you worry...

captain swoop
2003-Aug-06, 07:36 AM
Why would he want Clavius to teview it?

if he is aware of the site then he must know it's content, if he knows its content he knows what a review would be and must be aware that everything on his page is bunk.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Aug-06, 07:39 AM
Maybe he wants to find dis-info agents so that he can point and say: "See! I told you they existed! See! See!" :roll:

Musashi
2003-Aug-06, 07:59 AM
Jay, I think this guy is related to the last guy.

http://conspiracies.bounceme.net/

http://members.shaw.ca/freecable/index.htm

That second link is the "home" button from the new site. They go to the same place.

Musashi
2003-Aug-06, 08:01 AM
I changed my mind, they are not related, they are the same site.

WHarris
2003-Aug-06, 12:03 PM
The Flag that was planted in the lunar surface can not be seen by the most powerful earth telescope as well as the Hubble Space telescope

Well, that could be because it is impossible for the Hubble to see anything that close.

Hubble can focus on the Moon, and has done so on at least one occasion.

Hubble shoots the Moon (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1999/14/)

Eta C
2003-Aug-06, 12:54 PM
As well in 1969 no Airplanes had the ability to reach the high altitudes necessary to simulate weightlessness Aprox, 40,000 - 50,000 feet.


Well this one at least is totally wrong. Your standard airliner cruises at about 35,000 feet and could go higher. U-2 spy planes were up at 80,000 feet in the 1950's. The SR-71 flies almost as high. The X-15 was easily up above 100,000 feet. That was high enough for their pilots to qualify for astronaut wings. In any case, our author seems to think that once you get to "Aprox (sic) 40,000 - 50,000 feet" gravity vanishes. :o

Rue
2003-Aug-06, 02:09 PM
Apollo 11 mission was faked in order to collect government funding

Make the statement, than procede with all the typical HB evidence.
Where is the evidence that backs up the claim of "to collect government funding" ?


The Lunar Lander's guidance system was not even as powerful as calculator built in 1980

To fly in space you need a super powerful star trek style computer.
I've always explained the LM guidance as a computer made to run one program no need for an OS. Or that it is a peripheral of the two mainframes on earth that did all the heavy work....bah you can't talk about computers today without referencing modern PCs.



The shadowing off every picture in Nasa's database shows that their are too many light sources there should be only one " The Earth reflecting light"

The sun is better at making shadows.




Its impossible to be sitting on the sunny part of the moon as it would melt the 3 astronauts above.

Melt? Only if you threw water on them.




The USA was in a race for space with Russia and faked the mission to help save face with the Russian superiority regarding space travel.

So it's not to collect government funding?




You can see the studio reflection in the gold foil of the studio where it was filmed

ALSJ #s? or video?





Flags don't sway in space see the Videos and you can clearly see the choppy editing of the poor film editing of 1969 where the Astronauts didn't jump up and down to show there weightlessness live for the world to see. The reason they didn't do that is that it was beyond the Producing ability of 1969 film editing to show weightlessness.

Flags do sway in space when you touch them see the Videos. Astronauts did not jump up and down much. But they did fall down in ways that would be impossible on earth.

So again where is the conclusive evidence of faking the mission in order to collect governemnt funding. And why is only A11 mentioned does the author know there were five other landings?

ToSeek
2003-Aug-06, 02:13 PM
I'm being told that the site is no longer there.

captain swoop
2003-Aug-06, 02:23 PM
I'm being told that the site is no longer there.


yup, bouncy bouncy.

Well. that didn't last long did it?

JayUtah
2003-Aug-06, 04:12 PM
Hm, it was there as of an hour or so ago.

I'm almost sure we're dealing with the same individual as before, which makes me revisit my strategy of posting the URLs here for general comment. I tend also to think we're dealing with a comparative youngster. The author certainly seems to be a child of the digital age. The implication that video can only be transmitted in digital form is either an anachronism, or expresses a very high degree of misinformation.

I hear the term "web-enabled society" when describing how the Internet has revolutionized the way we access information and interact with each other (to borrow a line from Austin Powers). In cases like this I favor "web-hobbled society". The ease with which one can access pertinent information has lulled too many students into believing that knowledge doesn't exist unless it's on the web.

We hear about "official sites" or "NASA's database", and these are cited as authoritative repositories for Apollo information. They aren't. The vast majority of Apollo information exists in the formats that were popular at the time: print, film, and photography. The conversion of this data to web-deliverable formats entails loss and compromise. That's not a problem for informal research, but you can't make the argument that NASA isn't able to deliver more than a minute of weightlessness video from Apollo simply because the MPEGs you commonly download for free are less than a minute long. Those are meant to be tidbits and tastes, not full-course meals. LPI's site even says so.

The aircraft ceiling argument is pretty baffling. When I first started seriously addressing conspiracist arguments I found I had great difficulty understanding some of the conspiracist arguments. It dawned on me months into my reading: I was reading their arguments from the point of view of a reasonable level of education in the sciences. Even in fields outside my specialties I knew more or less how things worked. But these authors were writing with a completely different conceptual framework of the universe, one based on common sense and limited observation.

It's easy to look at people floating around in spacecraft in low earth orbit and draw the conclusion that if you just go a couple hundred miles away from earth, there's no "gravity". I bristle nowadays when I hear that the Vomit Comet "simulates" the conditions of "zero-gravity" or "weightlessness". The aircraft produces the effect in the same way that the ISS does: by placing vehicle and occupant in an identical ballistic trajectory so that there is no net force between them.

Granted, so not everyone's a physics whiz. I'm glad there are people who are no good at physics but very good at accounting for money, or for helping other people understand their feelings, or for planting flowers. The problem is when people want to appear to understand these technical subjects without putting forth the required effort. Instead they look for shortcuts.

To combat gross misunderstandings of physical law requires a lot of time and patience. Often people laboring under these misunderstandings are not open to the realization of just how wrong they are. They expect you to provide a correction or refinement within the context of their conceptualization, not to challenge it so profoundly. So for an argument that says you have to be 40,000 feet into the air in order for gravity to go away, the author might expect simply to be told a different altitude -- 60,000 or 90,000 feet -- for gravity's disappearance. The author rarely is amenable to being told that's not how gravity works at all.

ToSeek
2003-Aug-06, 04:50 PM
To combat gross misunderstandings of physical law requires a lot of time and patience. Often people laboring under these misunderstandings are not open to the realization of just how wrong they are. They expect you to provide a correction or refinement within the context of their conceptualization, not to challenge it so profoundly. So for an argument that says you have to be 40,000 feet into the air in order for gravity to go away, the author might expect simply to be told a different altitude -- 60,000 or 90,000 feet -- for gravity's disappearance. The author rarely is amenable to being told that's not how gravity works at all.

The more fundamentally you disagree with someone, the harder it is to argue with them. In order to provide an argument, you need to start from some common ground. This is why I think debating with creatures like Nancy Lieder is futile: there's not enough common ground to hold a discussion, at least certainly not in the sound-bite world of talk radio.

TriangleMan
2003-Aug-06, 04:56 PM
Granted, so not everyone's a physics whiz. I'm glad there are people who are no good at physics but very good at accounting for money . . .


You're welcome! :D

(sigh, accountants so rarely receive appreciation from others . . . :( )

JayUtah
2003-Aug-06, 05:21 PM
...there's not enough common ground to hold a discussion, at least certainly not in the sound-bite world of talk radio.

It disturbs me that more and more people prefer sound bites to a long-form, correct response. Conspiracy theories are ideal in the sound-bite format. It takes only a few seconds to raise what appears to be an important issue. But very often it takes more than 15 seconds to address that issue. And when people like Brian Welch try to reduce the answer to a sound-bite, they're accused of providing unsatisfactory answers. The popular news media today has created the expectation that you can talk about something completely in 15-30 seconds.

aporetic_r
2003-Aug-06, 05:40 PM
...there's not enough common ground to hold a discussion, at least certainly not in the sound-bite world of talk radio.

It disturbs me that more and more people prefer sound bites to a long-form, correct response. Conspiracy theories are ideal in the sound-bite format. It takes only a few seconds to raise what appears to be an important issue. But very often it takes more than 15 seconds to address that issue. And when people like Brian Welch try to reduce the answer to a sound-bite, they're accused of providing unsatisfactory answers. The popular news media today has created the expectation that you can talk about something completely in 15-30 seconds.

Interestingly, even the sound bite has gotten shorter. Sound bites are down to an average of about 4 seconds, from 10 seconds 15-20 years ago.

Aporetic
www.polisci.wisc.edu/~rdparrish

ToSeek
2003-Aug-06, 05:42 PM
Interestingly, even the sound bite has gotten shorter. Sound bites are down to an average of about 4 seconds, from 10 seconds 15-20 years ago.



In fact, sound bites are getting so sh

CincySpaceGeek
2003-Aug-06, 10:29 PM
Jay, I think this guy is related to the last guy.

http://conspiracies.bounceme.net/

http://members.shaw.ca/freecable/index.htm

That second link is the "home" button from the new site. They go to the same place.

DANG!!!!! Both sites are either dead or down! You guys get to have all the fun! :lol:

JayUtah
2003-Aug-06, 11:20 PM
You really would have got a chuckle from that site. Apparently the lunar module couldn't transmit QuickTime fast enough, and if you go up in a corporate jet to 45,000 feet (yes, they typically have higher ceilings than the commercial airliners) gravity disappears. :-)

Peter B
2003-Aug-07, 04:47 AM
Late this month Iíll be giving a talk about the Moon Hoax to the Australian Skeptics National Conference. At least, Iíll be giving it at the Junior Skeptics section, which is aimed at school kids.

Iíll be using the Moon Hoax to illustrate another point, though, and that is to encourage them to challenge claims, to look at them from a number of directions in order to see whether theyíre believable. Itís amazing how many claims woo woos can make which people accept without question, even though the evidence to debunk those claims is right in front of them. In other words, there are a lot of people out there who simply donít have the intellectual wherewithal to think through the consequences of claims. Hence they accept that there's no gravity above 40,000 feet, even though corporate jets fly up there.

captain swoop
2003-Aug-07, 08:13 AM
It disturbs me that more and more people prefer sound bites to a long-form, correct response. Conspiracy theories are ideal in the sound-bite format. It takes only a few seconds to raise what appears to be an important issue. But very often it takes more than 15 seconds to address that issue. And when people like Brian Welch try to reduce the answer to a sound-bite, they're accused of providing unsatisfactory answers. The popular news media today has created the expectation that you can talk about something completely in 15-30 seconds.

That's how creationists like kent Hovind work., set up a 'debate', use a bunch of soundbytes which are usualy lies. distortions or out of context quotes and rely on the fact that any oponent trying to refute them looks like they can't because they would need to produce a long and technical argument.

ktesibios
2003-Aug-10, 06:51 AM
I recall reading somewhere about a university mathematics department which created a "bedbug letter" that read something like:

"Dear Sir and/or Madam:

We have received your proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. The first mistake is on page__, line__..."

The filling in of the blanks would be assigned to some lucky grad student.

Perhaps Jay could use something similar. Sort of a checklist:

"If you're arguing about the visibility of stars in ALSJ photos, dial 1.
If you're claiming that the AGC wasn't powerful enough to handle its task, dial 2...

If it turns out that you have a claim that isn't already explicitly examined here, then ask me to review your site."

with the appropriate Clavius or other references in place of dial 1, dial 2, etc.

freddo
2003-Aug-10, 11:53 AM
I recall reading somewhere about a university mathematics department which created a "bedbug letter" that read something like:

"Dear Sir and/or Madam:

We have received your proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. The first mistake is on page__, line__..."

The filling in of the blanks would be assigned to some lucky grad student.

Perhaps Jay could use something similar. Sort of a checklist:

"If you're arguing about the visibility of stars in ALSJ photos, dial 1.
If you're claiming that the AGC wasn't powerful enough to handle its task, dial 2...

If it turns out that you have a claim that isn't already explicitly examined here, then ask me to review your site."

with the appropriate Clavius or other references in place of dial 1, dial 2, etc.

I don't know if Jay is getting tired of debunking the exact same claims over and over, but if he is, something like this is not a bad way to go about making the job easier.

Perhaps the creation of some "I have a hoax site I want reviewed" submission form - where the conspiracist can bring their arguments, and be shown point-form whether they have been addressed previously, or whether they are new and unique arguments - would be pertinent?

I dunno - just musing I guess... But it doesn't seem all that fair that it's so easy for HB'ers to start fires - and it takes much effort to extinguish them... If it were possible to stop the same fires from being lit - the job may become more manageable.

Not to say you guys don't do a bang up job.... =D>

BigJim
2003-Aug-11, 01:00 AM
I can't get to the site. It seems to have vanished - can you access it?

freddo
2003-Aug-11, 01:05 AM
I can't get to the site. It seems to have vanished - can you access it?

'S gone BigJim... Sorry mate - the boat has sailed. :wink:

This site in particular didn't last more than 5-6 hours.

JayUtah
2003-Aug-11, 02:28 AM
I like the idea of a form response, especially a funny one.

I think I'll just invite people to post their URLs here rather than submit them to me.

freddo
2003-Aug-11, 02:38 AM
I like the idea of a form response, especially a funny one.

I think I'll just invite people to post their URLs here rather than submit them to me.

Heh. That way only ones that are worth your time will require it. If an amateur like me can tear a HBer to shreds, why you need bother?

johnwitts
2003-Aug-11, 07:16 PM
I like the idea of a form response, especially a funny one.

I think I'll just invite people to post their URLs here rather than submit them to me.

Heh. That way only ones that are worth your time will require it. If an amateur like me can tear a HBer to shreds, why you need bother?

I think he enjoys it... :D

freddo
2003-Aug-12, 02:39 AM
I like the idea of a form response, especially a funny one.

I think I'll just invite people to post their URLs here rather than submit them to me.

Heh. That way only ones that are worth your time will require it. If an amateur like me can tear a HBer to shreds, why you need bother?

I think he enjoys it... :D

We all do... =D>

johnb
2003-Aug-12, 02:45 PM
Freddo`s comment about fires is so true. But it`s always been the case that the firemans job is harder than the arsonists. But the rewards are better. Jay utah et al =D> =D>

freddo
2003-Aug-13, 12:09 AM
Freddo`s comment about fires is so true. But it`s always been the case that the firemans job is harder than the arsonists. But the rewards are better. Jay utah et al =D> =D>

Hmm.. Arsonists go to Jail...

Oooh the possibilities.... :lol:

johnb
2003-Aug-13, 09:37 AM
Freddo`s comment about fires is so true. But it`s always been the case that the firemans job is harder than the arsonists. But the rewards are better. Jay utah et al =D> =D>

Hmm.. Arsonists go to Jail...

Oooh the possibilities.... :lol:

Does being incarcerated and made to sit through constant reruns of Apollo footage with a daily lecture on "How Man made it to the Moon", constitute cruel and unusual punishment. :lol:

freddo
2003-Aug-13, 11:57 PM
Tee Hee!!

Only to them - I look forward to specials like that on the Cable TV!! =D>

AGN Fuel
2003-Aug-14, 12:06 AM
Tee Hee!!

Only to them - I look forward to specials like that on the Cable TV!! =D>


Whenever I see Hoax sites like this one and the indefatigable efforts of Jay et al in debunking them, it reminds me of the G.K. Chesterton line (paraphrased):

'It is the hardest thing to convince people that 0 + 0 + 0 still equals 0.'

Gotta keep doing it though - keep up the good work guys! =D> =D> =D>