Author Topic: Apollo XIII-inconsistences  (Read 119894 times)

Offline dwight

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 685
    • Live Tv From the Moon
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #315 on: October 13, 2015, 12:44:25 PM »

I think he's also expecting random Internet people rather than the guy who literally wrote the book on Apollo television. 

Whoever he is, he's apparently not aware of what Stan Lebar told him, despite being moderately handsome* and being an all-round great guy.





*open to debate
"Honeysuckle TV on line!"

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #316 on: October 13, 2015, 12:47:28 PM »

I think he's also expecting random Internet people rather than the guy who literally wrote the book on Apollo television. 

Whoever he is, he's apparently not aware of what Stan Lebar told him, despite being moderately handsome* and being an all-round great guy.





*open to debate
I don't think he would understand the technology nor the implications of any report
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #317 on: October 13, 2015, 12:47:50 PM »
NASA has presented literally tons of evidence that they went.  I've evaluated what my specific educational level and direction permits me to evaluate (it's more than you might think), and it holds up.  People actually educated in other relevant fields have evaluated what they can, and they have universally said it holds up.

It holds up very well, and its techniques are still being taught to engineers today.

But technical details aside, when tarkus wields Occam's Razor, he's holding it by the wrong end.  Occam's Razor is an explicit framework for comparing two hypotheses.  It cannot be used simply to disregard or discredit a single hypothesis in isolation.  Tarkus implies the other hypothesis is that Apollo 13 (and the other missions) were hoaxes.  Laying aside all the superstition and cabalistic handwaving, Occam's Razor clearly prunes the hoax hypothesis.  Occam requires two hypotheses with equal ability to explain the outcome.  The one that does so by the least appeal to conjecture or untestable claims is deemed the most parsimonious.
Smartcooky has given us an excellent list of the kinds of questions that would need to be answered before the hoax hypothesis can be said not to be purely conjectural.  However tarkus misunderstand's William of Occam's intent entirely.  Tarkus tells us that the Razor prunes Apollo 13 (on flimsy superstitious and dubious statistical grounds), but then insinuates the hoax hypothesis then stands by default.  That's not at all how Occam's Razor works.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #318 on: October 13, 2015, 02:05:55 PM »
NASA has presented literally tons of evidence that they went.  I've evaluated what my specific educational level and direction permits me to evaluate (it's more than you might think), and it holds up.  People actually educated in other relevant fields have evaluated what they can, and they have universally said it holds up.

It holds up very well, and its techniques are still being taught to engineers today.

But technical details aside, when tarkus wields Occam's Razor, he's holding it by the wrong end.  Occam's Razor is an explicit framework for comparing two hypotheses.  It cannot be used simply to disregard or discredit a single hypothesis in isolation.  Tarkus implies the other hypothesis is that Apollo 13 (and the other missions) were hoaxes.  Laying aside all the superstition and cabalistic handwaving, Occam's Razor clearly prunes the hoax hypothesis.  Occam requires two hypotheses with equal ability to explain the outcome.  The one that does so by the least appeal to conjecture or untestable claims is deemed the most parsimonious.
Smartcooky has given us an excellent list of the kinds of questions that would need to be answered before the hoax hypothesis can be said not to be purely conjectural.  However tarkus misunderstand's William of Occam's intent entirely.  Tarkus tells us that the Razor prunes Apollo 13 (on flimsy superstitious and dubious statistical grounds), but then insinuates the hoax hypothesis then stands by default.  That's not at all how Occam's Razor works.
It seemeed to me that he was not applying Occam's Razor correctly, but I don't know a of the setups.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #319 on: October 13, 2015, 02:59:00 PM »
....Even today the Deep Space Network doesn't provide the bandwidth for live television feeds.

Now, I did not know that!!

I really, really MUST get a copy of Dwight's book, and read it!!!
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #320 on: October 13, 2015, 03:12:12 PM »
Keep in mind the DSN is only for interplanetary use.  Its role in orbital operations is limited.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline twik

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #321 on: October 13, 2015, 03:16:32 PM »
They brought back a TV camera whose performance must demonstrate (where the films are surveyor III?). And I do not think they have been to the moon, no one will convince me that that camera brought from there.

No, and that's the problem. Your mind is welded shut, and no possible proof will convince you. Taking you to the Moon and letting you examine the sites wouldn't convince you.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #322 on: October 13, 2015, 03:47:21 PM »
....Even today the Deep Space Network doesn't provide the bandwidth for live television feeds.

Now, I did not know that!!

I really, really MUST get a copy of Dwight's book, and read it!!!
I didn't know that either.  Those smart NASA engineers/technicians think of most everything.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline tarkus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #323 on: October 17, 2015, 04:18:45 PM »
If you're including 10 then why not 8?  Or didn't you know that also went around the Moon?  Just because something has a low chance doesn't mean it will never happen.  Or don't people win the lottery all the time?
You are short of understanding ... of course people win the lottery every day, which is not credible is that one person wins the lottery three consecutive days!!!

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #324 on: October 17, 2015, 04:21:35 PM »
If you're including 10 then why not 8?  Or didn't you know that also went around the Moon?  Just because something has a low chance doesn't mean it will never happen.  Or don't people win the lottery all the time?
You are short of understanding ... of course people win the lottery every day, which is not credible is that one person wins the lottery three consecutive days!!!
And this means?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #325 on: October 17, 2015, 04:22:32 PM »
If you're including 10 then why not 8?  Or didn't you know that also went around the Moon?  Just because something has a low chance doesn't mean it will never happen.  Or don't people win the lottery all the time?
You are short of understanding ... of course people win the lottery every day, which is not credible is that one person wins the lottery three consecutive days!!!

And now you are demonstrating your ignorance about probability.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #326 on: October 17, 2015, 04:24:32 PM »


And now you are demonstrating your ignorance about probability.
Pretty well fits his/her personality
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline tarkus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #327 on: October 17, 2015, 04:26:53 PM »
American probes j Windley, American probes ... which of them have TV cameras?

You just added that condition.

Quote
Which?

You can start with Ranger, which is an American spacecraft sent to the Moon and which transmitted television back.

The other missions you've named either have no need for streamed television or are interplanetary missions that make long-distance television transmission prohibitive. In your haste to invent reasons, you've ignored such things as mission objectives and requirements. You started out by suggesting television transmission from space was impossible, therefore Apollo was fake.  Now you've backpedaled into ad hoc revisionism, and the bizarre notion that any viable spacecraft need to transmit television.
I see no reason to be prohibitive today it was so easy to do almost 50 years ago Mr Windley, right now we have neither one nor robot spacecraft TV broadcasting from space, but we are asked to accept by faith that filmed ago so long.

Offline tarkus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #328 on: October 17, 2015, 04:32:17 PM »
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX, for considering that a total of 8 missions to the Moon (Apollo 10 is included because it reached the lunar orbit) had just 1/8 chance that you Apollo 13 happen to "bad luck".

Then we have 1/30 chance that unfortunately happen on the day No. 13, April 13, 1970.

Then there was 1/1440 of the Apollo 13 took off at 13:13 in Houston.



NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
the launch time is correct but it was 14:13 local at launch.  so you statement dies, Luck had nothing to to  do with OTHER MIssions Just hard work by eground technicians formulating work around fo rel time issues that cropped up.

EDIT to correct horrible spelling
"Apollo 13 was the seventh manned mission in the American Apollo space program and the third intended to land on the Moon. The craft was launched on April 11, 1970, at 13:13 CST from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #329 on: October 17, 2015, 04:33:55 PM »
I see no reason to be prohibitive today it was so easy to do almost 50 years ago Mr Windley, right now we have neither one nor robot spacecraft TV broadcasting from space, but we are asked to accept by faith that filmed ago so long.
The mission rules/objectives included television so they broadcast from the Lunar surface.  You obviously didn't understand  or you refuse to understand what Jay said.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan