Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 109
  1. #21
    Jay Windley's Avatar
    Jay Windley Guest

    Default Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?



    | SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT
    | PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!


    | http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

    Parallax.

    | http://www.tntleague.com/misc/StrangeM.rm

    Not from two different Apollo missions. From the same mission, and again
    the explanation is parallax.

    | One of the worst sun flares ever recorded happened in August
    | 1972, which was between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions.

    Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Yes, there was a severe solar flare in August
    1972, during which no Apollo mission was operating. That was the only flare
    of that magnitude (or even close to it) that occurred during the Apollo
    operational period. There was no protection in the form of shielding for
    solar flares. Protection against solar flares was in the statistical
    distribution of the missions to avoid them. It worked, as the data bear
    out.

    | Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests
    | on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem)
    | applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the
    | film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn't that happen to the Apollo
    | films?

    Because the Apollo film wasn't subjected to anywhere near the radiation that
    Groves used in his experiment. Groves doesn't claim his experiment has
    anything to do with the radiation environment in space. His conclusion is
    simply that if you blast film with a lot of radiation, it fogs. He leaves
    it up to others to determine whether that amount of radiation occurs in
    space.

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

    | So sceptics who are claiming that NASA know when the Solar Flares
    | are going to appear are talking rubbish - as usual...

    I read about this flare at CNN two days before it happened. Clearly they
    *can* be predicted.

    There are two ways to predict. One is to say, "The next major solar flare
    will be on this date." That's not really possible. The other is to say,
    "The chances of a major solar flare occurring during this particular week
    are very low." That can be done statistically, and *was* done.

    | If this were the case, why didn't they bring down the astronauts
    | from the Shuttle and ISS if they knew this gigantic Solar Flare
    | was about to erupt?

    Because they're inside the Van Allen belts.

    | He [HJP Arnold] has commented that you would expect to see some
    | small dots on the films where a high velocity nuclear particle had
    | hit the film, however no evidence of this whatsoever has come
    | forward.

    That means either that (a) the photos were faked, or (b) Mr. Arnold is
    mistaken in his expectations. What did you do to determine which
    explanation was correct? What other experts besides Mr. Arnold agree that
    this should have been seen?

    | The only thing that would protect the film from this damage would be
    | a thick layer of lead around the camera casing...

    Hogwash. The marks appear in the film because the film absorbs the
    particle. If the particle passes through it without being absorbed, there
    is no mark. Similarly, if the particle doesn't make it past the magazine
    casing, it never gets to the film. So the candidates for making marks on
    the film are only those particles that have enough energy to pass through
    the casing, but not enough to pass through the film.

    It is common layman's understanding that only thick pieces of lead will
    provide shielding against radiation. That is utterly false. High-energy
    x-rays and gamma rays require thick, dense shielding. But many of the
    particles in cislunar space can be stopped with a sheet of typing paper.
    The most common material used as a radiation shield in space engineering is
    aluminum. Guess what the camera magazine was made out of?

    | Let's also remember that the films were changed whilst outside
    | on the Moon's surface and not in any controlled environment.

    And they bear the light leaks to prove it.

    | There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the
    | LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket.

    The engine was not operating at 10,000 lbf at landing, but rather at 2,500
    lbf. Provide the calculations proving that a crater would have been
    created.

    | If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot
    | print if all the dust had been blown away?

    What famous boot print? There are no photographs of Armstrong's first print
    on the moon.

    Further, it is a straw man to say that "all" the dust was blown away. We do
    not make that claim. Indeed the film record shows that while dust was
    blown, it was not exhaustively cleared from the area. If all the dust had
    been blown away, it would have stopped blowing before the engine was shut
    down. But we see the dust blowing right up to the point where the engine
    was turned off. There was obviously more dust to be blown.

    And the area around the footpads is quite a distance away from the area
    directly under the engine nozzle.

    | CNN issued the following report

    Nothing about this report disallows Apollo visits to the moon. And the
    parts in parenthesis were added by Bart Sibrel, a conspiracy theorist. They
    aren't part of the original report.

    | In 1969 computer chips had not been invented.

    Hogwash. Ever hear of Fairchild Semiconductor?

    | The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in
    | a large air conditioned building.

    Hogwash. Ever hear of the PDP-8?

    | In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of
    | memory to run a simulated Moon landing...

    Consider the difference between an embedded system and a general purpose
    desktop. Consider the difference between simulating a moon landing with
    full graphics and sound (i.e., the "experience" of the game) and the simple
    mathematics behind LM flight dynamics. Even staying within the simulation
    realm, Lunar Lander was a popular computer game in the 1970s and it required
    considerably less resources than it does today.

    This is a purely apples-and-oranges comparison.

    | that does not include the memory required to take off again
    | once landed.

    How much "memory" (specifically) is required for each of these steps?

    | The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's
    | the equivalent of a simple calculator.

    Why do you discuss only memory? Do you understand how to evaluate a
    computer's performance?

    You imply, but you do not prove, that this capacity was insufficient to land
    on the moon. Please specify, in concrete terms, the minimum computer power
    required to land on the moon.

    | If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it
    | would be visible today through a powerful telescope...

    No. The Dawes limit makes this impossible for current telescopes.

    | The Clementine probe that recently maps the Moons surface failed
    | to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions.

    Hogwash. The Clementine orbiter photographed the regolith disturbance
    caused by the Apollo 15 landing. The equipment itself is smaller than
    Clementine's resolution.

    | Surrounding the earth, beginning at an altitude of 1,000 miles and
    | extending an additional 25,000 miles, lie lethal bands of radiation
    | called the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

    Actually Bart Sibrel can't make up his mind where exactly the Van Allen
    belts are. His film and two places on his web site give drastically
    different figures.

    "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining
    assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo
    missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such
    nonsense." (Dr. James Van Allen, letter to Doug Lambert, March 5, 2003.)

    | Every manned space mission in history (including Mercury, Gemini,
    | Soyuz, Skylab and the Space Shuttle) has been well below this deadly
    | radiation field

    Hogwash. Gemini 9 and Gemini 10 both went well into the Van Allen belts.
    Further, communication satellites operate constantly in the Van Allen belts.
    If they were anything other than how NASA has said they are, many private
    companies would know.

    | Recently uncovered footage of the crew of the Apollo 11 staging
    | part of their mission proves that the astronauts never made it beyond
    | earth orbit.

    Sibrel's footage is simply the test downlinks. He simply interprets them as
    "staging". He selectively presents only the parts that seem to support his
    hypothesis, never showing you the whole film but instead giving you only a
    few seconds of it. He leaves off showing you the parts of the footage that
    prove they're on a translunar trajectory.

    | The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned
    | hours in space.

    Hogwash. By the time Apollo 11 flew, the U.S. had a three-to-one
    superiority in hours in space.

    | They were first in achieving the following seven important
    | milestones

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

    | The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth.
    | ... When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400
    | miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower
    | altitude.

    So now the Van Allen belts begin at 400 miles, not 1,000 miles as Sibrel
    claimed elsewhere.

    See also http://www.clavius.org/envflash.html

    | Take a look at the lunar module which supposedly flew from lunar
    | orbit to the surface of the moon. It is a cylindrical shape with
    | a high center of gravity and one big thrust engine at the bottom.

    Hogwash. The LM is more short and squat than any other rocket-powered
    vehicle. Its center of gravity is *low*, not *high*.

    | Upon just looking at this design, to think it would not immediately
    | pinwheel and crash...is absurd.

    Utter question-begging. Sibrel is simply goading you into believing his
    contention that the LM was unstable without providing any argument that it
    is. He's simply begging you to agree with his conclusion without providing
    any reason why you should. Sibrel is a part-time cameraman. He has no
    training in flight dynamics or aerospace design.

    |...as the lunar module trainer did three weeks prior on Earth

    The LLRV crashed because it broke, not because it was inherently unstable.
    The LLRV and the follow-on LLTV each accumulated hundreds of successful
    training flights. It didn't "pinwheel" when the steering system broke; it
    veered, maintaining enough stability for Armstrong to eject. This is
    indicative of inherent stability, not inherent instability.

    The crash took place months before the flight, not weeks.

    These are long-debunked charges. Did you do *any* research to determine
    whether answers to these questions already existed?

    --
    |
    The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
    to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org


  2. #22
    Jay Windley's Avatar
    Jay Windley Guest

    Default Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?


    "Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
    news:9A7Xc.23122$UTP.16997@twister01.bloor.is.net. cable.rogers.com...
    |
    | Let me ask you this, what bothers you guys so much that people say there
    | was no Moon landings?

    1. It's a lie.

    2. It's bad science.

    3. It's bad reasoning.

    --
    |
    The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
    to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org


  3. #23
    Mad Scientist's Avatar
    Mad Scientist Guest

    Default Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?

    His claim of no evidence would make Randi and Phillip Klass(less) proud.

    Paul Lawler wrote:



    Round and round the merry go round we go, where we stop, nobody knows....




    I am talking scientific papers which justify the billions spent. You
    are talking politics.


    Please contact your

    It is not up to those showing evidence that the moon landings were
    hoaxed, it is up to those claiming they weren't to provide evidence.




    Your confusion noted.


    The curvature of

    I'll remember this argument next time someone tells me that you are a
    sound and reasonable person.


    Nonetheless,

    Doesn't matter, still doesn't account for why the recent mapping mission
    which does resolve even the smallest rocks found no evidence of any
    lunar landing sites.

    Nor do you explain why the exact same lunar landing site is shown for
    two entirely different moon missions, which were supposedly miles apart.


  4. #24
    Mad Scientist's Avatar
    Mad Scientist Guest

    Default Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?

    You know you claim to want to dialogue, and you claim to not ever insult
    me, but the facts speak differently. I'll remember this and treat you
    with nothing but disdain from now on deciever.

    Paul Lawler wrote:



  5. #25
    Mad Scientist's Avatar
    Mad Scientist Guest

    Default Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?

    Another usenet sociopath backtracks on his own statements made in
    entirely different posts.

    Algomeysa2 wrote:



  6. #26
    Mad Scientist's Avatar
    Mad Scientist Guest

    Default Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?

    Paul the resident idiot of alt.astronomy now wants things to go back to
    respectful dialogue.

    Paul Lawler wrote:



  7. #27
    Mad Scientist's Avatar
    Mad Scientist Guest

    Default Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?



    OG wrote:



    No it would be better if you sociopaths ignored my posts altogether.
    This I prefer, but to no avail. Each and everytime someone says ignore
    me, I hope they would. Each and everytime someone says I am on the
    killfile, I smile and think, good riddance moron.




  8. #28
    Mad Scientist's Avatar
    Mad Scientist Guest

    Default Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?



    Jay Windley wrote:


    So its a bunch of kooks and quacks. Ignore them. Why get so upset?


  9. #29
    Jay Windley's Avatar
    Jay Windley Guest

    Default Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?


    "Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
    news:5i8Xc.24049$UTP.19268@twister01.bloor.is.net. cable.rogers.com...
    |
    | I am talking scientific papers which justify the billions spent.

    Why would scientific papers directly justify the expense? Public
    expenditure *is* a political question.

    As to whether Apollo produced enough science, in the form of papers, then
    consult the literature. It is extremely difficult to find any journal
    discussing geology, space science, engineering, or similar fields from the
    1960s and 1970s that does *not* have a plethora of Apollo-related science in
    it.

    | It is not up to those showing evidence that the moon landings were
    | hoaxed ... [to provide evidence]

    Hogwash. You are the claimant. You have the burden of proof.

    | it is up to those claiming they weren't to provide evidence.

    We have. It is that very evidence that you're trying to explain away with
    vague, handwaving arguments.

    | Doesn't matter, still doesn't account for why the recent mapping mission
    | which does resolve even the smallest rocks found no evidence of any
    | lunar landing sites.

    If you're speaking of Clementine, then it is *not* true that Clementine can
    resolve "even the smallest rocks".

    | Nor do you explain why the exact same lunar landing site is shown for
    | two entirely different moon missions, which were supposedly miles apart.

    Your evidence does not substantiate this. You show me two clips and *claim*
    they were from different missions. You have the burden of proof to show
    that they are from different missions, since that is the point on which your
    claim rests. There are well-established indexes for such material, making
    it possible for you to give ground elapsed time (GET) references for each of
    those clips. That would substantiate that they were from different
    missions.

    It is both possible and incumbent upon you to substantiate your claim.

    If the footage indeed came from the same mission, then the same distant
    background would not be suspicious.

    --
    |
    The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
    to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org


  10. #30
    Jay Windley's Avatar
    Jay Windley Guest

    Default Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?


    "Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
    news:ap8Xc.24203$UTP.5586@twister01.bloor.is.net.c able.rogers.com...
    |
    | No it would be better if you sociopaths ignored my posts altogether.
    | This I prefer, but to no avail.

    Hogwash. You change your e-mail address specifically to defeat killfiles.
    When I proposed to killfile you myself, you said that such an action would
    be sociopathic.

    --
    |
    The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
    to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org


 

 
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is the Moon Hollow? Sleuths?
    By Imperishable Stars in forum General Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-08-2004, 03:08 PM
  2. Evidence of Artificial Structures on the Moon? Sleuths
    By Mad Scientist in forum General Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 08-26-2004, 11:16 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:23 PM.