ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: inconceivable on August 23, 2012, 05:15:24 PM
-
I have been looking at the photo of the Apollo 11 landing site from the LRO. Did anyone notice the shadow of the LEM looks like the shadow of the LEM with the ascent stage still attached. How can that be? Also, it looks like you can see the docking tunnel, the s- band steerable antenna, maybe even the RCS thruster assembly or VHF antenna.
-
I have no great hopes of you actually responding to this, based on previous experience, but would you care to actually specify which image you are talking about and point out the things you think you are seeing in it? That would, after all, make actual discussion a heck of a lot simpler....
-
So NASA was smart enough to get equipment there to fake the mission, but so stupid as to leave evidence of that fakery?
Pffft! Just silly.
And as already noted: pointless for discussion without a decent rerefence to the actual picture in question.
-
LRO is good but not that good. Methinks you be making stuff up.
-
As I don't want to infringe on anyones copyrights, the photos can be found at www.space.com/12796-photos-apollo-moon-landing-sites-lro.html The LEM shadow looks rounded with a longer protrusion resembling an antenna, possibly. Looks like the full LEM.
-
Broken link. Try again.
-
LRO photos are not copyrighted.
The protrusions are the RCS plume deflectors. This was discussed on the old board and someone used a computer model of the LM to simulate the shadows: http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=apollo&thread=2458&post=71262
-
inconceivable, are you really arguing that NASA would have, when faking the photos, neglected to consider that only the lower portion was supposed to remain on the surface?
If so, can you explain how a group of such incompetents could pull off a hoax of this nature for over 40 years?
-
I have been looking at the photo of the Apollo 11 landing site from the LRO. Did anyone notice the shadow of the LEM looks like the shadow of the LEM with the ascent stage still attached. How can that be? Also, it looks like you can see the docking tunnel, the s- band steerable antenna, maybe even the RCS thruster assembly or VHF antenna.
Ascent stage still there? No; you're wrong.
-
LEM?
Where's my Bingo card?
-
Futurama had a nice take on this: http://theinfosphere.org/Lunar_landing_site
http://theinfosphere.org/File:Luna_lander_sticker.png
(I laughed and laughed when I saw the note the first time I saw that episode, because up to then I'd been fuming "that shouldn't be there!"...)
-
Yes, Futurama has a way of playing "gotcha", doesn't it?
But they still have a problem with the notion of "returning" the lander to the site. The Apollo 11 ascent stage was abandoned in lunar orbit, and perturbations would most definitely have caused it to hit the surface within a few years or less. So there was no ascent stage to return; the Historical Sticklers would have had to build a replica, obtain one of the unlaunched LMs, or retrieved Apollo 10's ascent stage from solar orbit.
-
They did a similar mistake on Transformers 3 except unlike Futurama, Michael Bay doesn't care about anything so just left it.
-
Or maybe they never left due to failure at lift off and the ones we saw come back are doubles that were in orbit just in case and paid to make it look like it was a success?
Oh go on, has that one been thought of yet?
-
Inconceivable, I find it inconceivable that you don't realise that even if the images were copyright, FAIR USE would apply.
Second, now that you have been given that information, if you were serious you would show us the image in question with arrows pointing at "the docking tunnel, the s- band steerable antenna, maybe even the RCS thruster assembly or VHF antenna".
Then you can show us an overhead image of the LM (even a drawing would be fine) that shows how those things match your diagram.
I suggest it would do you good if you discover that the actual LM descent stage would look exactly like it is depicted in the LRO images that you return and elaborate. Consider it a challenge to do that rather than vanish..
Also, can you explain for me how you came upon this 'idea'? Just came to you, did it?
-
As I don't want to infringe on anyones copyrights, the photos can be found at www.space.com/12796-photos-apollo-moon-landing-sites-lro.html The LEM shadow looks rounded with a longer protrusion resembling an antenna, possibly. Looks like the full LEM.
Looking at the LM itself, I think I can see the hole in the centre of the descent stage over the descent stage. Normally this would have been covered by Kapton, but the exhaust of the ascent stage lift off likely blew it away.
Also, looking closely at your 'rounded shadow' I believe I can see a brighter area in the shadow.
This makes me think it might be the shadow v shaped things (they have a name, but I admit it is unknown to me) sticking from the descent stage seen here on Apollo 17 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKDZmLJZVcg). And before you ask, the camera was mounted on the rover and remote controlled from Mission Control.
Admittedly, this is uneducated hypothesizing and musing on my part, I am not a professional or even particularly skilled amateur image analyst.
These are my thoughts and mine alone.
If I am wrong, I am wrong and find no shame in it but only a chance to learn.
-
Michael Bay doesn't care about anything so just left it.
$ure he doe$!
-
Also, looking closely at your 'rounded shadow' I believe I can see a brighter area in the shadow.
This makes me think it might be the shadow v shaped things (they have a name, but I admit it is unknown to me) sticking from the descent stage
I think you're referring to the four RCS plume deflectors. They were mounted on the descent stage to deflect the +X RCS (downward pointing) plumes away from the descent stage. I think they were a relatively late addition; they certainly do look like a kludge.
Because these deflectors project well above the deck of the descent stage, they cast spiky shadows on the surface at low sun angles as seen in the LRO images. They are almost certainly casting the shadows that Inconceivable thinks is the ascent stage.
There are pictures of the intact LM sitting on the surface, taken by the CSM's high resolution cameras on the J-class missions (Apollos 15, 16, 17). They could be used as a comparison to show that the LRO images are definitely of the descent stages alone.
-
Yes, I believe that is what I am referring to. Thank you. :)
-
I had to go back and watch that Futurama episode; I'd forgotten about that gag.
It was amusing how they didn't show the sign until some time after Fry and Leela discover the LM. Just long enough for the geeks in the audience to realize that the ascent stage shouldn't be there and to get smug about having found an error.
But there are other errors in that scene, such as the direction of the sun.
-
I just looked at the link you provided, and see nothing at all that looks like anything other than a LM descent stage. You have clearly been drinking the conspiracy wacko kool aid. You should try to get off that stuff, might have to enter a twelve step program.
-
To me. it looks like the descent stage is overexposed (not inconceivable, as the images would have the exposure set to correctly expose the regolith). The white spots near the descent stage are probably the disposed PLSS packs and the other rubbish that was dumped before ascent. You can see the PLSS in the images of the Apollo 12 landing site here:
http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/articles/lro-images-apollo-12-landing-site/
-
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/ap17_area-nolabel.jpg)(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/285px-LEM-linedrawing.png)
Looking at the shadow of the DS on the surface, and comparing it with the diagram of the AS and DS separated, it certainly looks more like the DS than the whole LM.
The area around the lander was quite flat, so if the AS were still attached, the shadow would be a lot longer (see the shadow in the crater at top right for comparison)
IMO, the "lump" in the DS shadow at about 11 o'clock looks like it might be top of the egress platform, or possibly one of the plume deflectors.
NOTE: I see the diagram doesn't show the plume deflectors. I thought they were attached half way between the landing struts on each side.
-
I think the plume deflectors were added after Apollo 9. A picture of Spider in earth orbit doesn't show them.
They do stick well above the top deck of the LM descent stage, so they definitely cast some spikey shadows at low sun angle.
Many of the LMs landed with some yaw, particularly Apollo 11. This is most easily seen in the LRO photos by looking at the footpads. So even the LM descent stages at equatorial sites generally don't cast symmetrical shadows.
-
I think the plume deflectors were not on Apollo 10 either. They were definitely not present as the LM was stacked in the Lunar Module Adapter on top of the S-IVB. To rule out the possibility that they were added after the vehicle was stacked, I looked at AFJ images of Snoopy taken from the CSM Charlie Brown after separation in lunar orbit. They're not of high quality but I still can't see any evidence of plume deflectors. So I think the deflectors were first added to Apollo 11's Eagle.
-
IIRD, the plume deflectors were added to Eagle after the A11 rocket was stacked. Eagle was the first to use them.
-
The photo on my earlier post was of the Apollo 17 landing site
When you watch the video of the AS lift-off....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=cOdzhQS_MMw
(NOTE: I tried to embed this video but it didn't work)
...its pretty clear that at least one of the plume deflectors (the near left as viewed from the camera) is blasted away by the rocket exhaust.
However, this view from the lunar rover camera shows what appears to be the other three still intact.
(http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/A17LEMDescentStage.png)
-
That would be awfully weird considering that it was one continuous shot.
To me it looks more like it is being obscured by flying debris.
-
To me it looks more like it is being obscured by flying debris.
There were a number of insulation blankets atop the descent stage, ostensibly to help absorb, diffuse, and deflect the APS plume. They didn't want it rebounding and damaging the underside of the descent stage, so they made sure there was a lot of crinkly stuff under it to disrupt the fluid flow. It looks like a lot of that blanket film ended up snagged in the plume deflectors, and it may be creating false outlines.
I love this particular clip also for the "no plume" naysayers. At the "Pitchover!" call you can look directly up the APS nozzle skirt (giggle) and see into the APS thrust chamber where it is most distinctly glowing. While we don't expect the plume to remain incandescent after it exits, there is every expectation it should incandesce while in the thrust chamber. And we have photographic proof of it.
-
And we have photographic proof of it.
Videotic?
New word! I claim it. It's mine. You all saw it here first...
-
Videotic?
New word! I claim it. It's mine. You all saw it here first...
We'll put it up right next to regurgigoogle.
-
Two of my other contributions to the English language: "insaniac" and "disastrophe".
-
Two of my other contributions to the English language: "insaniac" and "disastrophe".
disastrophe: The dire grammatical consequences that can result when an apostrophe is omitted or used in the wrong place in a word. Also know as a "grammataclysm"
-
To me it looks more like it is being obscured by flying debris.
There were a number of insulation blankets atop the descent stage, ostensibly to help absorb, diffuse, and deflect the APS plume. They didn't want it rebounding and damaging the underside of the descent stage, so they made sure there was a lot of crinkly stuff under it to disrupt the fluid flow. It looks like a lot of that blanket film ended up snagged in the plume deflectors, and it may be creating false outlines.
I love this particular clip also for the "no plume" naysayers. At the "Pitchover!" call you can look directly up the APS nozzle skirt (giggle) and see into the APS thrust chamber where it is most distinctly glowing. While we don't expect the plume to remain incandescent after it exits, there is every expectation it should incandesce while in the thrust chamber. And we have photographic proof of it.
They'll just say it was a light bulb.
-
They'll just say it was a light bulb.
It was. A hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide powered light bulb.
-
Two of my other contributions to the English language: "insaniac" and "disastrophe".
How portmanteaudacious of you.
-
Two of my other contributions to the English language: "insaniac" and "disastrophe".
You can't claim 'disastrophe': My family were using that one before my age was into double digits.
-
They'll just say it was a light bulb.
It was. A hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide powered light bulb.
I think you're mixing light bulb up with candle.
-
I think you're mixing light bulb up with candle.
Candles don't burn in vacuum.
-
If we are going to get technical, it could be classified as a kind of lamp, perhaps.
-
Two of my other contributions to the English language: "insaniac" and "disastrophe".
Not only was Insaniac one of the characters in Small Soldiers, it is also the name of a thrash metal band born in 1984.
Googlicious.
-
Candles don't burn in vacuum.
Unless they're self oxidizing.
-
I think you're mixing light bulb up with candle.
Candles don't burn in vacuum.
See, proof it was filmed on a sound stage, HA! /HB
-
You know, even if they were faking it and sending unmanned vehicles to replicate Apollo for any future prying eyes, why would they even send the ascent stage, inconceivable?
-
It was. A hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide powered light bulb.
Correction...an Aerozine-50* and nitrogen tetroxide powered light bulb. :-)
A pretty inefficient one, too.
* Aerozine-50: a 50-50 mix of straight hydrazine (N2H4) and UDMH (C2H6N2H2).
-
inconceivable, are you really arguing that NASA would have, when faking the photos, neglected to consider that only the lower portion was supposed to remain on the surface?
If so, can you explain how a group of such incompetents could pull off a hoax of this nature for over 40 years?
Well, hoax believers will argue that these incompetents have NOT been able to pull it off for over 40 years. We say that it was easy in the first 25 years or so, but after the advent of the internet, youtube and discussion forums, it became increasingly difficult to keep a lid on the many anomalies prevalent in the Apollo record. Believers have convinced themselves that the 'moon hoax' theory is stagnant or even in decline, but this is not what I have seen on the internet. It seems that there are many hundreds of thousands, and more likely millions of persons around the world who at least think that the Apollo photographic record was 'doctored', if not entirely false. Others of course, believe that all the 'moon missions' were faked.
-
It seems that there are many hundreds of thousands, and more likely millions of persons around the world who at least think that the Apollo photographic record was 'doctored', if not entirely false.
I'm sure that millions of people believe in flying saucers....doesn't make them any more real.
Same applies here.
-
Well, hoax believers will argue that these incompetents have NOT been able to pull it off for over 40 years.
Yet somehow unable to convince any real scientists, technicians, or other relevant experts. Repeating the same rote beliefs does not qualify for much.
It seems that there are many hundreds of thousands, and more likely millions of persons around the world who at least think that the Apollo photographic record was 'doctored', if not entirely false.
And you know this ... how?
Among the forums I have frequented, for up to ten years in some cases, no one is talking about Apollo hoax theories anymore. On BAUT, once Ground Zero for such discussions, there is only one thread. Ditto on JREF, operated by the same sock puppet. I'm looking at evidence for the decline in interest. You're telling me that you suppose some number of people still pursue it, but you can't narrow that number down to an order of magnitude.
-
inconceivable, are you really arguing that NASA would have, when faking the photos, neglected to consider that only the lower portion was supposed to remain on the surface?
If so, can you explain how a group of such incompetents could pull off a hoax of this nature for over 40 years?
Well, hoax believers will argue that these incompetents have NOT been able to pull it off for over 40 years. We say that it was easy in the first 25 years or so, but after the advent of the internet, youtube and discussion forums, it became increasingly difficult to keep a lid on the many anomalies prevalent in the Apollo record. Believers have convinced themselves that the 'moon hoax' theory is stagnant or even in decline, but this is not what I have seen on the internet. It seems that there are many hundreds of thousands, and more likely millions of persons around the world who at least think that the Apollo photographic record was 'doctored', if not entirely false. Others of course, believe that all the 'moon missions' were faked.
I would also argue that the advent of the internet and home-use digital motion graphics and compositing software such as Adobe After-Effects, and Vue 6, has made it much easier for Hoax Believers to create fake videos to prop up their ridiculous claims, so I wouldn't be so keen to place credence in youtube and discussion forums. You have to keep in mind that, of the "users" on the internet who vociferously advocate the existence of fakery in the Apollo project, only about 5% are "real"; the other 95% are their various sockpuppets.
As RAF rightly points out, the huge number of people who believe that UFOs are alien spacecraft does not make it true. You can apply the same criteria to the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, JFK, Pearl Harbour, Illuminati, Reptoids etc.
Even more convincing is the range of religious beliefs; Hindus, Christians, Muslims and tens of thousands of other religious beliefs held by BILLIONS of people, worldwide. They cannot ALL be right!!
Now while I do not believe for one moment that the photographic record was faked, I must accept that it would have been possible to have faked them. However, there is one thing that cannot have been faked. - the unique lunar environment of low gravity in a vacuum. This is impossible to fake without the use of digital compositing; techniques that were simply not available in the 1960's and 1970s. You only have to watch a few episodes of the original series of Star Trek (which was contemporaneous with the Apollo Programme) to see how clumsy their special effects were.
Even if they could have built a vacuum chamber big enough at act as studio (impossible even in this day and age) they could not have simulated the lunar gravity of 1.62 m/s just by slowing down the video. The simple act of speeding up Apollo video shows that this method does not work.......
This one fact is the one that HB's avoid discussing because they know its the smoking gun. I have tried to engage some of them on this point, but they just won't take the bait because they know that once they get the concepts involved, their whole belief system is going to come crashing down around their ears. The unique properties of the lunar environment could not have been faked in 1969; this, more than anything else, is the nail in the coffin of the Moon Hoax Conspiracy....
-
Believers have convinced themselves that the 'moon hoax' theory is stagnant or even in decline, but this is not what I have seen on the internet. It seems that there are many hundreds of thousands, and more likely millions of persons around the world who at least think that the Apollo photographic record was 'doctored', if not entirely false. Others of course, believe that all the 'moon missions' were faked.
The presence of many of these people on the net says very little about the state of the hoax theory, since most of them are trotting out the same tired old arguments that were debunked long ago (in some cases even before the missions flew, but no-one bothered reading up on the subject first). Questions like 'why does the flag wave?', 'where are the stars in the pictures?', 'why are the shadows not parallel?' and 'how did they get the rover up to the Moon in that tiny LM?' are commonplace on the net today. That does not mean they have not been answered. For heaven's sake, the deployment of the lunar rover was carried live on the Apollo 15 mission TV. You can easily SEE the answer to the question of how they got it there, and yet this has escaped people for decades it seems.
-
inconceivable, are you really arguing that NASA would have, when faking the photos, neglected to consider that only the lower portion was supposed to remain on the surface?
If so, can you explain how a group of such incompetents could pull off a hoax of this nature for over 40 years?
Well, hoax believers will argue that these incompetents have NOT been able to pull it off for over 40 years. We say that it was easy in the first 25 years or so, but after the advent of the internet, youtube and discussion forums, it became increasingly difficult to keep a lid on the many anomalies prevalent in the Apollo record. Believers have convinced themselves that the 'moon hoax' theory is stagnant or even in decline, but this is not what I have seen on the internet. It seems that there are many hundreds of thousands, and more likely millions of persons around the world who at least think that the Apollo photographic record was 'doctored', if not entirely false. Others of course, believe that all the 'moon missions' were faked.
I think the 'worldview' of many people has changed and it's no big deal to start a website starting your own conspiracy theory with solid 'evidence' and many 'anomalies'. Internet has not changed history, it has just given fools a bigger soapbox to stand on.
Many are abandoning reality and retreating to internet-based fantasy worlds, conjured into existence out of their fears and various prejudices. I think the moon hoax conspiracy theory is a combination of ignorance, distrust, Dunning–Kruger effects, paranoia and anti-Americanism. Some of these people are simply suffering from delusional paranoia, creating elaborate delusional fantasies in which they can play the role of 'Heroes of Truth'.
-
But sometimes Rob, the reason for questioning the 'moon landings' is not as intricate, nor contains ulterior motives - as you postulate. I, for example, am not anti-American. I have lived and worked in Atlanta and enjoyed it, and I found Americans in general quite affable - like anywhere else. I am also not trying to entertain myself or enliven my existence. With my own business to run, I have enough to keep me occupied - and entertained! It is simply a case of an enquiring mind 'making sure' (so to speak) of the so-called 'facts' presented.
I think that certainly, and at times, the reasons you mentioned, viz: anti -Americanism, paranoia, and even possibly sub-consciously creating fantasy worlds can be the reason that an individual is a proponent of a particular conspiracy theory.
But not every time.
-
The facts were acknowledged Edward. I really think it is more likely that what you believe are inconsistencies, anomalies and even lies are really just the result of misconception and misunderstanding the information provided.
You have been quoted a lot already Edward. I would love to read your comments on these remarks.
-
With my own business to run, I have enough to keep me occupied...
Indeed, I sympathize, as my engineering business keeps me busy. I've worked in the aerospace industry for some 25 years.
It is simply a case of an enquiring mind 'making sure' (so to speak) of the so-called 'facts' presented.
That may be true in your case, but as the author of the most widely-quoted resource on the Apollo hoax theory, I can report my experience as that people simply regurgitate ad nauseam old claims that have absolutely no scientific or technical merit, and would have been discovered as such by even cursory research. It rarely takes long for the ulterior motives to make themselves apparent.
However I note that more of those kind of people seem to be interested these days in 9/11 and Obama's birthplace than in Apollo hoaxes. That said, I've noticed that long-standing conspiracy theories tend to follow cycles of interest. We may simply be in a lull.
-
But sometimes Rob, the reason for questioning the 'moon landings' is not as intricate, nor contains ulterior motives - as you postulate. I, for example, am not anti-American. I have lived and worked in Atlanta and enjoyed it, and I found Americans in general quite affable - like anywhere else. I am also not trying to entertain myself or enliven my existence. With my own business to run, I have enough to keep me occupied - and entertained! It is simply a case of an enquiring mind 'making sure' (so to speak) of the so-called 'facts' presented.
I think that certainly, and at times, the reasons you mentioned, viz: anti -Americanism, paranoia, and even possibly sub-consciously creating fantasy worlds can be the reason that an individual is a proponent of a particular conspiracy theory.
But not every time.
I don't have any problem with people who are proponents of a theory, or even a conspiracy theory; even ones that I don't personally agree with.
However, what I do have a problem with is people who, when faced with a mountain of irrefutable, testable and provable scientific evidence that they are wrong, continue to be proponents of the theory, and who actually call the whole of the Laws of Physics into question rather than concede that they might be wrong.
These types of people then usually proceed to trot out the same old previously debunked chestnuts over and over, as if they think that repeating them ad-infinitum is going to somehow make then true.
"Rockets won't work in a vacuum because there is no air for the exhaust to push against" is a great example of this. There are still people out there who deny Newtons Laws of Motion, laws that are apparent everywhere in the universe. Rockets DO work in a vacuum. This is verifiable using a simple experiment that we did in our high-school physics class 40 years ago.
Our physics teacher set up a small fireworks skyrocket attached upside down to a set of scales inside a vacuum chamber. The chamber was pumped down to about 0.03"HG (?) and the skyrocket was then set off using an electrical fuse wire (the solid fuel in a skyrocket provides its own oxidiser, so it will burn in a vacuum.). The scales showed a definite downward pressure of a few hundred grammes.
-
To a large extent what you say regarding repetition on the part of hoax believers is true, Jay. You believe that their contentions have been answered. They believe not. Perhaps it is often a case of not understanding scientific principles.
There are however, a few points which I will mention over my next few posts which have not (according to my viewpoint) been satisfactorily answered, some of which do not involve physics in any form. Perhaps they will be answered here.
If there is any waning of interest in the veracity of the Apollo missions - it is probably cyclical - and that it is (as you say) in a lull.
-
Well I'm sorry, I'd like to be polite and you've been a gentleman so far, but in the 10-15 years I've spent following the Apollo Denier crowd around, the number that were intellectually honest, and that truly did come up with their own original questions from primary sources, and that had no ideological bias....were zero.
In fact, it's become a familiar pattern. One of a mere handful of such. The poster who shows up claiming to have no dog in the race, a complete unfamiliarity with and disinterest in the standard hoaxie materials, and in fact does present with his first post a question/claim which is unique.
And 100 times out of 100, when pushed, that same poster suddenly starts pulling bait-and-switch and Gish Gallop, dragging old nonsense from Aulis or Sibrel to support a position they seem to have realized is untenable.
Thus revealing, also, their intellectual dishonesty. If they were true to the spirit of inquiry they pretend, they'd work on -- or reluctantly reject -- the claim they started on. Instead, every single time, they pull something else out so they never have to admit they were wrong. Oh, sure, maybe they were wrong about the spot on the film or the dust on the leg or whatever horse they rode in on. But the fact that something is wrong, that there is an underlying conspiracy; no, that never goes away. So even when they do admit their first idea was off base, it is always done in a throw-away, "Oh, but that's not important any more," manner.
-
To a large extent what you say regarding repetition on the part of hoax believers is true, Jay. You believe that their contentions have been answered. They believe not. Perhaps it is often a case of not understanding scientific principles.
You're right. Hoax believers don't understand scientific principles. Now, with that in mind, who is more likely to be right?
-
Nomuse, you do yourself no favours by referring to hoax believers as 'deniers' - nevertheless, disbelievers would level the same accusations at you. Another term which believers use, often with no justification, is that of 'liar'. This seems to be an easy copout. I, in turn, have noticed that believers have not always answered my questions (some have been unique - not anything which Sibrel, Rene et al. have concocted).
I think it works both ways. Those who have always championed the moon landings as authentic, will not easily alter their point of view, and vice versa. Believers are of the opinion that their explanations always make sense, that their 'logic' is always unimpeachable, yet non-believers often honestly do not see it that way. I agree that many non-believers would be too hard-headed to admit being misled on certain points. It's not easy to admit that one is wrong, but it serves no purpose lying to oneself. If answers to questions make sense and are logical, I will accept them. Time will tell.
-
Gillianren, it is rather presumptious of you to state categorically that non-believers do not understand scientific prinicples per se. Nevertheless, certain contentions by non-believers, leading to their doubts, cannot be explained using scientific principles.
-
Gillianren, it is rather presumptious of you to state categorically that non-believers do not understand scientific prinicples per se.
Hardly. I have never met a hoax believer that understood the simplest scientific principles. They all make hilarious errors in Newton's Laws of Motion, gravitation, thermodynamics, celestial mechanics, etc. Here's a very recent example:
It took the craft 7 months to get to Mars at full speed...
-
Gillianren, it is rather presumptious of you to state categorically that non-believers do not understand scientific prinicples per se.
I have made the same observation myself.
For example I have recently been speaking to a 'non-believer' who has also stated that rockets can not work in a vacuum. I am sure you understand the problem with that claim...
-
Gillianren, it is rather presumptious of you to state categorically that non-believers do not understand scientific prinicples per se. Nevertheless, certain contentions by non-believers, leading to their doubts, cannot be explained using scientific principles.
Actually, what she has stated is categorically true.
A Hoax Believer who understands even the most fundamental Laws of Physics is an oxymoron.
Now while I understand that some of the things that HB's propose as "inconsistencies" cannot be explained with scientific principles, there are certain fundamental premises of the Hoax Theory, that, if proven false means that the whole theory falls over. Here are two examples;
Lunar Gravity - There is NO place on Earth that can serve as an artificial alternative to this. The fact that the Lunar Gravity makes objects fall at 1.63 m/s cannot be falsified or faked.
Vacuum - Building a vacuum chamber big enough to serve as an EVA studio is impossible. The biggest one available now is hundreds of times too small.
It would be impossible for any reasonable person to truly understand the scientific principles involved, and still be a true Hoax Believe.r
-
Some more notable examples:
I do not agree you see the moon unlike the earth does Emmit lot and lots oflight when The moon is full. Albedo is not measured by percent Actually the lower the albedo the more light is being emitted I attached a real picture of the moon it is definitely emitting light
And of course:
How high above the surface of the moon does this alleged vacuum start..?
I'm another who's never seen a hoax believer who wasn't scientifically illiterate, but humans have an immense capacity for self delusion, so such a thing might exist. A hoax believer who is not only scientifically literate but can provide rational support for their beliefs? No such creature exists.
-
Nomuse, you do yourself no favours by referring to hoax believers as 'deniers' - nevertheless, disbelievers would level the same accusations at you. Another term which believers use, often with no justification, is that of 'liar'. This seems to be an easy copout. I, in turn, have noticed that believers have not always answered my questions (some have been unique - not anything which Sibrel, Rene et al. have concocted).
First off, the emotional baggage of the term is not mandatory. There are people who deny that the Apollo Missions took place. This is a literal statement.
However, the emotional baggage is not unwelcome. This is a pattern of behavior; they do not act like people engaging a question or exploring an idea. They react by negation, changing tactics, calls to emotion; whatever will get them a pre-determined result. This is a pattern of denial, not inquiry.
I think it works both ways. Those who have always championed the moon landings as authentic, will not easily alter their point of view, and vice versa. Believers are of the opinion that their explanations always make sense, that their 'logic' is always unimpeachable, yet non-believers often honestly do not see it that way. I agree that many non-believers would be too hard-headed to admit being misled on certain points. It's not easy to admit that one is wrong, but it serves no purpose lying to oneself. If answers to questions make sense and are logical, I will accept them. Time will tell.
This is true, but only to a point.
When you get down to detail, you will discover that "believers" (those who accept the narrative of Apollo) will accept corrections. They will get things wrong. They will be corrected by others. They will openly admit it, and learn from it.
On the "other side" you wish to see as a mirror, these things take place rarely. Deniers argue corrections, and when pressed, either change the argument or change venues. They also NEVER correct each other. It doesn't matter how insanely stupid the Apollo Denier to their left is, they will never call them out on it or make an effort to correct them. That, more than anything else, reveals the falseness of claims of equivalency.
-
Gillianren, it is rather presumptious of you to state categorically that non-believers do not understand scientific prinicples per se. Nevertheless, certain contentions by non-believers, leading to their doubts, cannot be explained using scientific principles.
...which makes those contentions (aka belief in giant conspiracies, indulgence in arm-chair psychology, sophist attacks on the basis that absolute proof is impossible) extremely attractive to the deniers.
-
There are however, a few points which I will mention over my next few posts which have not (according to my viewpoint) been satisfactorily answered, some of which do not involve physics in any form. Perhaps they will be answered here.
Another prominent characteristic of Apollo deniers, because that is what they are, is the statement that they will at some point ask important questions or elucidate some unexplained mystery about Apollo, but in the meantime will berate everyone for not being sufficiently polite to the denier community. Let us hope you will get to your points and not get sidetracked. And hope you will understand and properly address the responses to your points.
-
More scientific illiteracy in this thread: http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3011
Edwardwb1001, can you provide a single example of a moon hoaxer demonstrating even a basic level of scientific literacy?
-
Gillianren, it is rather presumptious of you to state categorically that non-believers do not understand scientific prinicples per se. Nevertheless, certain contentions by non-believers, leading to their doubts, cannot be explained using scientific principles.
If you understand scientific principles and apply them to the Apollo missions, there is no conclusion other than that the missions really happened as described. You can argue that point all you like, but that's how simple it really is. The missions were literally impossible to fake as presented. No one has ever presented a scientifically reasonable means of faking all the evidence. This also means that deniers don't understand that finding a single "smoking gun" isn't enough to discount all the rest of the evidence, surely its own failure to understand how science works.
And the more you delve into the conspiracists, the more you realize that some are lying. More than a few. They cannot be otherwise.
-
More scientific illiteracy in this thread: http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3011
And in typical HB fashion, after 10 pages of the most obstinate arguing, he is conclusively shown to be wrong (having been shown the textbooks he insists didn't exist) he slinks off without so much as an acknowledgement.
-
..., but after the advent of the internet, youtube and discussion forums, it became increasingly difficult to keep a lid on the many anomalies prevalent in the Apollo record.
What 'anomalies'? And do be specific.
-
I think it works both ways. Those who have always championed the moon landings as authentic, will not easily alter their point of view, and vice versa. Believers are of the opinion that their explanations always make sense, that their 'logic' is always unimpeachable, yet non-believers often honestly do not see it that way...
I would not call myself a "believer"; the correct term is "engineer", with a couple of decades in aerospace, and I have worked for and with Apollo engineers and Apollo-era astronauts. I have never seen - not once, in nearly a decade of participating in "hoax" discussions - anyone make an argument which accounted for the entirety of the evidence that the Apollo crews landed on and returned from the Moon. In fact, not one of the hoax claimants I've encountered has even grasped the scope of the evidence, let alone understood most of it.
Sorry, but there aren't always two sides to every story, and opposing views are not always worthy of equal respect. I don't simply believe Apollo happened because I was told so, but because I understand it. I won't easily alter my opinion as to the reality of Apollo because I am reasonably familiar with the record, I understand much of how it works, I use some of the same techniques and knowledge in my own work, and I have had first-hand opportunity to judge the competence and integrity of some of those who made it happen.
But perhaps you will have something novel to offer in the way of hoax claims, and will be the first to offer a comprehensive and realistic alternative to the record; I look forward to your arguments.
-
There are however, a few points which I will mention over my next few posts which have not (according to my viewpoint) been satisfactorily answered, some of which do not involve physics in any form.
Okay, a quick way to get people annoyed here is to insist you have a whole list of things to talk about but you refuse to reveal them yet. Just say what you have to say.
Perhaps they will be answered here.
They will be. Will you accept the answers?
Nomuse, you do yourself no favours by referring to hoax believers as 'deniers'
You have only just joined but already tried to insult (three) established members. Please don't do that. If someone denies an event occurred, they are a "denier". It is not a value judgement, just a shorthand way of referring to their beliefs.
-
I would say that when something can be established as was and can be proven, then the hoax believer who is opposed to this and cannot refute it is a denier shirley? No amount of youtube or other interweb tomfoolery is going to change things.
Revelations. Why does this theme crop up? Stump it up, get it out in the open, you will feel better. Or is it the usual pattern, trying to build suspense..... I might tell you what I found under a rock in my garden later... there, have some suspense back...
-
There are however, a few points which I will mention over my next few posts which have not (according to my viewpoint) been satisfactorily answered, some of which do not involve physics in any form. Perhaps they will be answered here.
They will if you actually get on with posting them. Why are you wasting time arguing these points rather than presenting what you believe to be your most important questions?
I should mention that we have seen this over and over again from others: promising 'I have some good points to bring to the table' and not actually delivering, procrastinating by picking apart the minute details of the conversation thus far rather than dealing with the substance of their questions. Please don't be just another of them.
-
Gillianren, it is rather presumptious of you to state categorically that non-believers do not understand scientific prinicples per se.
That's a comment from experience, not presumption. I have been discussing this subject for over a decade now and I have yet to come across a hoax believer who did understand the science. It would perhaps be more precise to say they did not understand the science to the required level, nor how to apply the principles they presumably were taught in school.
-
Gillianren, it is rather presumptious of you to state categorically that non-believers do not understand scientific prinicples per se.
I have been discussing this subject for over a decade now and I have yet to come across a hoax believer who did understand the science.
Me too. I just realised that last week, it was exactly 10 years since I joined the then BABB. So I've been discussing this subject for over a decade too. And I also have never come across a hoax believer who was particularly scientifically literate, at least not an intransigent.
-
Edwardwb1001, why don't you simply cut to the chase?
I presume you have a special area of interest, backed up by lots of knowledge and experinece - it would be rather embarrassing to turn up here with supposedly 'new' claims and then post either very OLD and long debunked rubbish, or point out 'anomalies' that show you simply don't understand the topic at all.
The dust 'issue' raised in the other thread is, sadly, in both categories.
So rather than waste time with discussions about whether or not the historical record is mainstream accepted or not (it is..), or whether it is appropriate to call hoax believers 'deniers' (it is..), just .. get on with it.
-
Nomuse, you do yourself no favours by referring to hoax believers as 'deniers' - nevertheless, disbelievers would level the same accusations at you. Another term which believers use, often with no justification, is that of 'liar'. This seems to be an easy copout. I, in turn, have noticed that believers have not always answered my questions (some have been unique - not anything which Sibrel, Rene et al. have concocted).
I'm not sure why you consider "denier" a slur - after all, your position denies that the moon landings took place (at least as declared). That is in no way the same as "liar", which, by the way, is a slur that hoax proponents are quite fond of using. Certainly I've never seen a moon landing proponent attack hoax believers by calling them "paid shills", as the pro-hoax people do on a regular basis.
As far as not answering your questions, it would help if you got on and actually asked some, instead of telling us what great questions you have yet to come. It's starting to sound like "all preview, no movie".
Further, with regards to your understanding of science - there was quite a long stretch in your other thread where you appeared to misunderstand, or misuse, the word "float", as well as appearing to believe that dust will billow as an intrinsic property, even in the absence of an atmosphere. If people take this to mean that you do not understand basic scientific principles, I cannot consider it to be their fault.
-
Gillianren, it is rather presumptious of you to state categorically that non-believers do not understand scientific prinicples per se.
That's a comment from experience, not presumption. I have been discussing this subject for over a decade now and I have yet to come across a hoax believer who did understand the science. It would perhaps be more precise to say they did not understand the science to the required level, nor how to apply the principles they presumably were taught in school.
Certainly not the science of Apollo, though people can potentially have expertise in some areas and and have major blind spots in others.
Though, in general, I agree, it's not presumptuous at all.
-
This is rather amusing. I do have many of you in a tizz. Andromeda and ChrLz, it's not for either of you to tell me when I should post any questions. I said I have a number to post, and I will - in my time - not when you demand it. Both of you are bordering on being obnoxious. I'm really not bothered in the slightest whether you think I am wasting time, or not. Don't read any of my posts if you are dissatisfied with the manner in which I am conducting my tenure.
Unlike yourselves, although I am very interested in the Apollo programme, my life does not revolve around it. I did not say, incidentally, that each and every question/statement would be earth-shattering and hitherto unheard of. I do have some which I have not seen elsewhere. Again, don't badger me to post - I will, often enough. I already spend large amounts of time on these forums.
Andromeda, it is not for you to tell me what to do, or what not to do. You state that 'I've already tried to insult three established members'. I usually return like for like. After my very first post, which was not contentious in any way, I had certain members replying in a rather cocky, know-it-all fashion.
The attempt at belittlement which a number of members openly display does the Apollo cause no favours. It unneccesarily riles hoax believers, and is certainly not conducive to winning any over. I suggest less of a superior attitude on the part of many members (even if certain members are indeed bona fide physicists). No regular members will agree with the following statement, but it seems that some are competing with others in their professed intellectual ability. As a new member, this is readily apparent.
Andromeda, you ask whether I will accept answers. I will accept answers - if they adequately answer the questions. Andromeda, twik and ChrLz, if you have the Apollo programme at heart, I suggest desisting from your belligerent attitude - if you would like to add a current disbeliever to the ranks of believers.
-
Oh, goodness, I can't compete with Jay when it comes to Apollo. Few people can. People who are ready and willing to learn soon discover that, while there are things Jay doesn't know about Apollo, there aren't a heck of a lot of them. And he's far from the only expert around here.
In all sincerity, let me ask. What would convince you that Apollo was real? You don't believe the engineers who worked on it and the engineers who have used the Apollo evidence over the last few decades. You don't believe the geologists from many countries who have studied the Apollo samples. You don't believe the amateurs who tracked the Apollo missions with no US government funding. You don't believe the Soviet Union, which accepted the facts right away. You don't believe the special effects people, who still can't adequately repeat the hours upon hours of Apollo footage. You don't believe the photographic experts, who tell you that the pictures are genuine. You don't believe the astronauts.
We are being dismissive?
-
In all sincerity, let me ask. What would convince you that Apollo was real? You don't believe the engineers who worked on it and the engineers who have used the Apollo evidence over the last few decades. You don't believe the geologists from many countries who have studied the Apollo samples. You don't believe the amateurs who tracked the Apollo missions with no US government funding. You don't believe the Soviet Union, which accepted the facts right away. You don't believe the special effects people, who still can't adequately repeat the hours upon hours of Apollo footage. You don't believe the photographic experts, who tell you that the pictures are genuine. You don't believe the astronauts.
We are being dismissive?
And by extension he believes that even today there are armies of technicians fabricating the data from the Lunar Research Orbiter, which clearly shows all the Apollo sites, hardware and paths walked and driven by the astronauts. When I was at University I visited Jodrell Bank and the moon landing came up in passing. One of the guys pulled out the track they made of the Eagle as it descended to the surface. They even spotted it gain altitude as Neil Armstrong took over to avoid landing in a boulder field. I suppose (in his book) they must be liars too.
-
5 paragraphs, 356 words. For me, this would have taken ~15 - 20 minutes to type, depending on how much time I spent wrestling with the prose.
How many questions could Edward have asked if he had not spent this effort on writing about his limited time?
This is rather amusing. I do have many of you in a tizz. Andromeda and ChrLz, it's not for either of you to tell me when I should post any questions. I said I have a number to post, and I will - in my time - not when you demand it. Both of you are bordering on being obnoxious. I'm really not bothered in the slightest whether you think I am wasting time, or not. Don't read any of my posts if you are dissatisfied with the manner in which I am conducting my tenure.
Unlike yourselves, although I am very interested in the Apollo programme, my life does not revolve around it. I did not say, incidentally, that each and every question/statement would be earth-shattering and hitherto unheard of. I do have some which I have not seen elsewhere. Again, don't badger me to post - I will, often enough. I already spend large amounts of time on these forums.
Andromeda, it is not for you to tell me what to do, or what not to do. You state that 'I've already tried to insult three established members'. I usually return like for like. After my very first post, which was not contentious in any way, I had certain members replying in a rather cocky, know-it-all fashion.
The attempt at belittlement which a number of members openly display does the Apollo cause no favours. It unneccesarily riles hoax believers, and is certainly not conducive to winning any over. I suggest less of a superior attitude on the part of many members (even if certain members are indeed bona fide physicists). No regular members will agree with the following statement, but it seems that some are competing with others in their professed intellectual ability. As a new member, this is readily apparent.
Andromeda, you ask whether I will accept answers. I will accept answers - if they adequately answer the questions. Andromeda, twik and ChrLz, if you have the Apollo programme at heart, I suggest desisting from your belligerent attitude - if you would like to add a current disbeliever to the ranks of believers.
-
This is rather amusing. I do have many of you in a tizz. Andromeda and ChrLz, it's not for either of you to tell me when I should post any questions. I said I have a number to post, and I will - in my time - not when you demand it. Both of you are bordering on being obnoxious. I'm really not bothered in the slightest whether you think I am wasting time, or not. Don't read any of my posts if you are dissatisfied with the manner in which I am conducting my tenure.
Well this post confirms my suspension that you are more interested in discussing how you feel mistreated than discussing your thoughts on an Apollo hoax. Well this section of the forum is for discussing the hoax, so please stay on topic here and take you general conversation to another area.
-
I am reminded of a poster on BAUT who went by the nick "Let Me Enlighten U". Granted, his was a rather more extreme case, but as his nick implies, he repeatedly claimed to be able to "enlighten" us as to the true nature of the Apollo program. He constantly dodged and distracted to avoid actually putting an argument forth, often making comments about the interest he's getting or the "progress" people were making. Turned out he had nothing, and failed spectacularly at making stuff up on the fly. Not at all a unique case, but one of the more extreme ones I've seen, to the point I rather believe he was actually a troll.
In summary: Edwardwb1001, reminding someone of "Let Me Enlighten U" is a bad thing, and you're doing it. You're the one who said you'd cover these supposed new points over you're next few posts, and you could easily have begun to do so. This is a common behavior among people who have no interest in honest discussion, and it's not at all unreasonable for people to point that out.
-
This is rather amusing. I do have many of you in a tizz.
And this entire post suggests that's basically all you are interested in.
Understand this: this forum has been here for many years. I have been on it for over a decade now. In that time we have seen countless hoax believers come on and claim they have questions they want answered. Questions they have never seen answered. Questions that for them are the whole basis of their belief that Apollo was fake. And then they don't post them. They post stuff like this, concentrating more on their perceived persecution when we ask them to actually do what they said they would than on the substance of Apollo. When we see this over and over again, yes, it does become irritating, and when we see a new person come along and apparently do exactly the same yes, it sets off alarm bells for us and we react accordingly.
If you want to prove us wrong then pose your questions. So far all you are doing is exactly what we expected to see but hoped we would be wrong about.
Andromeda and ChrLz, it's not for either of you to tell me when I should post any questions. I said I have a number to post, and I will - in my time - not when you demand it.
Just get on with it. It's boring and nothing we haven't seen before to watch you dance around picking on the regulars here rather than doing what you said you would. You could have posted your questions in the time it took you to write this post, or even added a couple to the end of it. Why won't you?
Both of you are bordering on being obnoxious.
Stop the attacks on other members and get to the point.
Unlike yourselves, although I am very interested in the Apollo programme, my life does not revolve around it.
And stop this as well. No-one here has a life that 'revolves around' Apollo. We do this in our free time as you do.
Andromeda, it is not for you to tell me what to do, or what not to do.
So do what you suggested we do: don't read our posts if you disapprove of the way we reply. If you're here to debate Apollo then debate Apollo. So far you seem to have more time to debate the conduct of people here than to get to the substance of your questions, which unfortunately puts you squarely in the same camp as a whole bunch of other hoax believers who have done nothing but waste our time so they can crow about how badly mistreated they think they were when they go to other forums.
You state that 'I've already tried to insult three established members'. I usually return like for like. After my very first post, which was not contentious in any way, I had certain members replying in a rather cocky, know-it-all fashion.
Rubbish. You had members respond by suggesting you consider a question that would answer your original qurery: namely, what would the dust 'billow' or 'float' in on the moon? your question is something we have seen countless time before in the past ten years. There were certainly no responses that have justified some of the comments you have made against us.
It unneccesarily riles hoax believers, and is certainly not conducive to winning any over. I suggest less of a superior attitude on the part of many members (even if certain members are indeed bona fide physicists).
Considering the attitudes we have seen from hoax believers, I don't think I feel like being lectured on how to conduct a debate by one, thank you.
No regular members will agree with the following statement, but it seems that some are competing with others in their professed intellectual ability. As a new member, this is readily apparent.
As a regular member, what is readily apparent to me is that you have come here to rile us and conduct more of a metadiscussion on the way your questions are answered rather than the substance of the answers. That's nothing new, nothing original, and frankly nothing I have any patience for. If you have questions, just get on with posting them. If you don't like the way some people reply, ignore it. After ten years of doing this, I would love to be proved wrong about a hoax believer's attitude. So far you're not convincing me.
Andromeda, you ask whether I will accept answers. I will accept answers - if they adequately answer the questions.
Question: how do you decide if they have adequately answered the question? I have seen this said many times, but on every occasion (and I do mean every occasion) the answers have not been accepted simply because the questioner did not understand them or refused to do the work needed to understand them, or even in some cases refused to do some very simple experiments that would have demonstrated the principles to him quite simply with minimal effort. In short, I have yet to see anyone who says they will accept answers actually accept them. The caveat: 'if they adequately explain' has too often been used as an excuse to move the goalposts in my experience. So yes, that probably does result in a somewhat belligerent response from me. But if you had been asked by a passer by on the street if you'd seen a policemen in the area, and every time you said no you got mugged and had your phone and wallet stolen, wouldn't you be wary of anyone asking you if you'd seen a policeman after a while, even though the person may just want to find one to report a crime rather than with any criminal intent to deprive you of your wallet for the fifteenth time?
-
*Ticks off "ad hominem attacks"*
-
This is rather amusing. I do have many of you in a tizz. Andromeda and ChrLz, it's not for either of you to tell me when I should post any questions. I said I have a number to post, and I will - in my time - not when you demand it.
Excuse the snip. Saves clutter on the screen. All very flowery and prosaic (them contradictory words used this way?), easier to post the questions. I for one am interested to see what is brought to the table. I am not in the same engineering scientificary and education (and prononcification of English) league as many here but my interest is piqued when such questions are dangled. You could stop dangling, I somehow suspect that the usual suspects will be trotted out, nay, I fully expect the usual suspects to be trotted out.
So on the the grand scale of trottery outery what will we have? Shadows? No, too obvious, flag waving.... nah. Too easy. Crater is being addressed, and ignored. Not enough thrust to get off the moon seeing as a huge rocket got it there? No, lets see, the dust on the footpads has been answered satisfactorily, do I sense some backing off with the previously held notion that one had an unanswerable question yet the knowledge displayed has sundered the questionable notion apart and one is googling away for the nugget of unobtainium?
Edit. Or do I need a haberdashery?
-
It didn't take long for true colours to appear... :D :P
I'm guessing I'm not the only one who has noticed ad-hominem-laden 'ed-one-thousand-and-one' (how positively apt) hasn't conceded a single thing...
-
It didn't take long for true colours to appear... :D :P
I'm guessing I'm not the only one who has noticed ad-hominem-laden 'ed-one-thousand-and-one' (how positively apt) hasn't conceded a single thing...
Are you suggesting that we might have the one thousand and oneth name here?
-
Who has less of a life?
The person who spends his time talking about something great or the person who spends his time complaining about the conduct of the person who spends his time talking about something great.
-
Oh, Edwardwb1001
I've been looking at some of your posts on YouTube.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=plcp&v=PtdcdxvNI1o
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=plcp&v=7mOxQghay9w
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=7xeRXlgchdQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7xeRXlgchdQ
You also claim to have "researched" the subject for "years" but had only "feeble answers" given. That confirms for me that you will refuse to accept factual answers because they don't fit into your worldview, because you have done so repeatedly in the past. However, you refuse to present your arguments on YouTube either, which seems strange if you truly believe what you say. You appear to have some sort of grudge against people who are well-educated, and I wonder why that is.
What, may I ask, are you here for, if not to troll? For the record, we will not "disappear, never to be heard from again". Nor are we "apprehensive", although it will be fun to find out what "NASA's little secret is" (from their website, no less!). I have a fiver bet with another contributor here on the outcome.
On an unrelated note, I'm off to darn some socks and dig out a bingo card ;)
-
From the youTube links provided by Andromeda, posted by Edward:
conspiracy theorists are full of crap... but we derive much enjoyment not only from talking plenty of crap, but in watching as the crap we talk has the effect intended on believers who read such crap. It's fun to not only talk so much crap, but to be so full of crap, Blister. Especially so, when exceedingly well educated persons such as yourself continually read and respond to the crap which we spout.
Yet another believer... lured to reply by my purposefully placed comment on the 'beeping' noise. Some other bright spark also thought I was being serious when I mentioned that. I knew it would engender a response - Ha Ha!
How sad to see that you are exactly what we suspected, Edward.
One day we shall all be surprised by a hoax believer turning up who isn't obnoxious, trolling, and only interested in yanking our chains. One day...
-
Edwardwb1001, I must confess that I too am close to having a gutsful of your silly behaviour, and am indeed sorry that I have to say that in my first post to you. But I've had a bad week and now have that terminal disease oldfartitis.
Sure, some members were a little harsh, but not the most regular ones. Unfortunately for the rest of us, it seems to be a habit in parts of the US to put others down in order to make oneself feel bigger and better, and it's slowly coming here to New Zealand. It's not our usual way.
You are whining with much ado, like a petulant child, but I remind you of the sheer silliness in your very first Apollo question (emphasis mine):
there surely would have been a certain amount of dust/soil which would have billowed up to float down and settle
Two very precise words from a person who alleges he has studied Apollo, but who used words that got completely wrong something very basic about the lunar environment. You left us to wonder (well, me, anyway) whether you are either ignorant (which is normal for HBs in regard to Apollo) or stupid, and I thought most members were very diplomatic in querying your use of them and trying to correct you.
We ask hard questions here, and we criticise or correct each other if we are wrong. I think I recall it already happening to others since you arrived.
It doesn't ever bother me. I like being put right. It's called education.
So pull yourself together and act like a grown-up, or get out of the fire if the heat is too much for you. Stop whinging, stop playing games, and get on with it.
[And to put the record straight, I have hardly ever spoken to anyone like this since I joined here in March 2003, but you already appear to be a very deserving case and maybe even a jerk. I honestly hope you're not. We have quite a nice little forum here -- make the most of it, like many of we regulars do. It's a great place for learning -- one of the best I know.]
-
Wasn't there a the poster on the old board who seemed to have it in for educated people?
-
Wasn't there a the poster on the old board who seemed to have it in for educated people?
IIRC, the truck driver had a chip on his shoulder and a disdainful attitude toward anyone with education who spoke with authority. He was not the only one, though.
-
For what it's worth, this is one of the subtler technical mistakes in 2001. Kubrick, et al, couldn't control the billowing when filming the models landing on the Moon. In fact, in adding the verisimilitude of dust being displaced by exhaust, they may have not even considered how dust would move in a vacuum; IIRC, they filmed the dust moving in slow motion to make the motion scale correctly.
That said, there is a mythos that the film was the most technically perfect one ever made about space travel. Kubrick and company got many things right, but there were many errors, from continuity (where exactly did the flight attendant go with flight crew meals?), to physical (the space station interior footage was very good, but you can still tell people were walking up/down slope rather than reacting to their local vertical), to deliberate (the alignment of Jupiter's moons). The problem is that many HBers reference this film as the way things "should" be. That's my suspicion in this case.
-
Wasn't there a the poster on the old board who seemed to have it in for educated people?
It was DAKDAK on this board: TOO MUCH EDUCATION (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=92.0)
-
Wasn't there a the poster on the old board who seemed to have it in for educated people?
It was DAKDAK on this board: TOO MUCH EDUCATION (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=92.0)
Dakdak was great. That was some meltdown he had. Shame he had to try to delete all his posts and put an end to it.
-
Wasn't there a the poster on the old board who seemed to have it in for educated people?
It was DAKDAK on this board: TOO MUCH EDUCATION (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=92.0)
Dakdak was great. That was some meltdown he had. Shame he had to try to delete all his posts and put an end to it.
WOW! I hadn't seen that before. That was some meltdown!!
He doesn't just hate Apollo believers, he hates anyone with an education.
Interesting his take on commonsense and intuition. It reminds me of a phrase from a book about space-flight that I read many years ago (can't remember the actual book title). It was to the effect that even some of the seemingly simplest decisions you have to make have to be really well considered . "...in space, acting on your intuition can get you killed"
-
Wasn't there a the poster on the old board who seemed to have it in for educated people?
It was DAKDAK on this board: TOO MUCH EDUCATION (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=92.0)
Dakdak was great. That was some meltdown he had. Shame he had to try to delete all his posts and put an end to it.
Yes. That was too bad because he had made some detailed pictures illustrating some of his claims. They were completely wrong, but at least he did some work to explain what he was claiming. That's much better than people who drop hints about their great Apollo-busting revelations, but never get around to actually making any sort of specific claim.
-
That said, there is a mythos that the film was the most technically perfect one ever made about space travel. Kubrick and company got many things right, but there were many errors,
Quoting one of the first humans to see the moon close up, Bill Anders, from In the Shadow of the Moon:
He'd hoped for the moon of the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, released just two months before the flight. He says there was no comparison: "The moon, when we saw it up close, was quite different from the 2001 view, which was where the moon had a lot of sharp edges. This moon was well rounded, sandblasted. It was kind of disappointing. 2001 had everything so sharp. I mean, it was still interesting, and I would have been very pleased to walk on it, to see it up close. But at a distance you looked down, it's like a rug, with every hair. The closer you look, there are just more hairs. You know, more craters - no real definition."
-
I do have many of you in a tizz.
Just people checking out the latest chew-toy.
Both of you are bordering on being obnoxious.
As the saying goes: Pot, meet Kettle.
-
All of you see my last post No.64 (under my original question) to see how wrong you are. Andromeda - you deserved every 'ad hominem' you received (in my opinion) and I am entitled to my opinion, am I not? ChrLz, why did you erroneously and misleadingly state on October 11 that I haven't conceded a single thing? You failed to take note that on October 10, under my orginal question, Jason stated "Concession noted." (Post no 34.) Smartcooky immediately thereafter, quotes ChrLz, and adds that "...we might have the one thousand and oneth name here." But how can that be, when I use the identical name and number on youtube? In any event, Smartcooky should have said: "...the one thousandth and one name here." Not too 'smart' after all.
Wait a second, a member mentioned that hoax believers never correct each other. Why then Jason, did you not correct either ChrLz or Smartcooky and inform them that I had indeed conceded a particular point? Andromeda purposefully sifted through dozens of my comments until she found two where I was specifically joking in response to a believer who continually used the word 'crap', which I never usually use - or other unsavoury language. The comment on 'the beeping noise' was also purely in fun, as the video clip pertaining thereto was humerous. Yet she misleadingly posted only these comments. So is this what Apollohoax is all about? No better than any hoax believer site. As much as hoax believers try to vilify believers, the opposite is true of believers trying to depecate non-believers.
The strangest thing of all, and which none of you seem to have realised, is that you are not doing your cause any good. There are few hoax believers on this site, and it is not always because they cannot understand any of the science presented. What is the purpose of a site purporting to debunk hoax claims, but there are few comments from hoax believers? From what I have seen, this site consists mainly of believers discussing the Apollo programme amongst themselves and congratulating themselves on how wonderful it was. The pompous, haughty attitude of many members here does this site a great disservice. Hoax believers will not want to be bothered with this site or persons on it, if you continue in this manner. As important as presenting scientific facts are here, it is important to present them in a civil fashion. I suggest that you don't disregard my comments too easily. It is very apparent to me as someone from the outside. You do want to convert hoax believers, do you not?
Kiwi, although I respect older persons, you come across as cantankerous and extremely rude. "Pull yourself together", "stupid", "get out of the fire", "get on with it", etc. Please, Kiwi. What is it with members here that they are all trying to tell me what to do? I had never addressed any comment to you, Kiwi. Did your mother never tell you that "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it?" The distinct impression is that members here are HOPING that any new hoax believer posting on this site WILL turn out to be simply argumentative, or worse, a 'troll'. In my case, this is completely untrue. I would like answers, which so far I am getting - but in between the argumentative comments.
I said before, that I don't spend hours a day on this site, but I will post questions, including a specific one which involves the NASA website, and which Andromeda (rather childishly, I might add, considering her unjustifiably inflated opinion of herself) has placed a bet on. You will all regard this as another 'rant', but what I have said here is very important - if you want to advance belief in the Apollo programme. If it was so uncontested around the world, this site wouldn't exist, would it?
So what is it going to be? Are you all going to post a flurry of comments advising me to 'get on with it'? I'll say it again: "I'll post my questions when I have the time to do so." The question regarding NASA's image is very lengthy and will require some time to type. As one of your more astute members said to other members: "Relax". The very fact that you are paying me so much attention, proves how few hoax believers actually visit or sign up on this site. I have incidentally, accepted the reasons given for no dust being visible on the LM's footpads, proving many members wrong in their assumptions of me.
Nevertheless, as you are all 'frothing at the mouth', (something which I sincerely hope is addressed in the near future and minimised), I will post my NASA website image related question within the next 48 hours. I hope it can and will be explained. If you would prefer me not to post any other questions, inform me thereof. I will simply continue disbelieving, and posting my views on other sites and forums. It's up to you.
-
Yeah, you know what? If you have anything to say, say it. If all you're going to do is lecture us about our behaviour, why are you taking the time to post at all?
-
So what is it going to be? Are you all going to post a flurry of comments advising me to 'get on with it'? I'll say it again: "I'll post my questions when I have the time to do so." The question regarding NASA's image is very lengthy and will require some time to type. As one of your more astute members said to other members: "Relax". The very fact that you are paying me so much attention, proves how few hoax believers actually visit or sign up on this site. I have incidentally, accepted the reasons given for no dust being visible on the LM's footpads, proving many members wrong in their assumptions of me.
You know your claims of being short on time would seem more plausible if you weren't posting them as part of a big rant about how you are being treated here. If you had instead used the time to actually post some of your questions about Apollo you would receive a much better response.
-
Edward, skip the long meta-discussions about how you (think you) are being treated here and GET ON WITH IT.
What is your evidence for the Apollo program not being as generally documented? Lay it all out.
Given how much time you spend on meta-discussions and how little you spend on substantive issues, claiming a lack of time, one might be forgiven for thinking that this just might be a smokescreen for a lack of defensible, factual evidence.
-
I am 'lecturing' you about members' behaviour, because I feel that it is sorely needed, gillianren. As important as questions are, in my opinion, how people conduct themselves on this site is equally important for the reasons given.
So, if members cease making assumptions about me, and making incorrect statements about me, I will stop 'lecturing' and begin posting questions. My so - called 'rants' here are not only about how I'm being 'treated', a word that members continually use, it seems, in an attempt to make me seem thin-skinned. Far from it - otherwise I wouldn't post these responses, and I would have quietly disappeared - something it seems a number of members would prefer every hoax believer to do.
After I posted my first question, which was IMMEDIATELY after I joined up incidentally, I received a few comments which I thought were uncalled for, and later, a number of incorrect assumptions - hence my ongoing response. You seem to forget that not only have I been on this site for only about one week, but I DID make a number of comments regarding responses to my first question. It takes time reading all the responses, in more than one forum, as well as perusing the rest of the site.
Perhaps if you had more hoax believers on this site you would have more questions, but many don't want to communicate with members here - and not only for the reasons you might think. Calm down! What's the huge hurry? (Obviously starved of questions, for the reasons I mentioned). I WILL post questions.
-
I know, I do not post much, mainly because what I would say has been said.
I should say that I do not only "believe" the Apollo landings happened as recorded, I KNOW without a doubt they did.
However......
Edward does have one point, as off topic as it might be, there is a lot of "calling him/her out." I know, I know, we've been there done that. Obviously he/she hasn't.
But, everyone here has a bigger point.........
Edward, GET ON WITH IT!!
Phil
-
While we wait how about playing guess the question.
I'll start;
Why are there no stars in the sky?
(actually that would be quite funny).
-
I am 'lecturing' you about members' behaviour, because I feel that it is sorely needed, gillianren. As important as questions are, in my opinion, how people conduct themselves on this site is equally important for the reasons given.
You know what? I disagree with you. This is an educational resource. You showed up here, called tens of thousands of people liars, and presented no valid reason for your belief. You've said you'll get to it, but why wasn't it the first thing you did? If this was so incredible to you, why wasn't it the most important thing you could have said, right away? I don't understand this. Unless the ill-informed stuff you started with was the thing which convinced you that Apollo was faked, in which case I weep for your science education.
So, if members cease making assumptions about me, and making incorrect statements about me, I will stop 'lecturing' and begin posting questions. My so - called 'rants' here are not only about how I'm being 'treated', a word that members continually use, it seems, in an attempt to make me seem thin-skinned. Far from it - otherwise I wouldn't post these responses, and I would have quietly disappeared - something it seems a number of members would prefer every hoax believer to do.
Here's my assumption about you. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Apollo. Now, you're welcome to prove me wrong, but until you start showing some scientific knowledge, I'm just going to carry on with that assumption.
After I posted my first question, which was IMMEDIATELY after I joined up incidentally, I received a few comments which I thought were uncalled for, and later, a number of incorrect assumptions - hence my ongoing response. You seem to forget that not only have I been on this site for only about one week, but I DID make a number of comments regarding responses to my first question. It takes time reading all the responses, in more than one forum, as well as perusing the rest of the site.
As I said, my only assumption about you thus far has been that you don't know what you're talking about. I suspect that is true of most of us. There is also the assumption that you are going to present the same old evidence we've seen dozens, if not hundreds, of times before, and you're welcome to prove that one wrong, too. But why would you post here if you hadn't at least read all the way through Clavius or this site (and there isn't much of it, unless you go into the archive on the old system) first? Surely that would be a sensible way to find out if your questions had already been answered.
Perhaps if you had more hoax believers on this site you would have more questions, but many don't want to communicate with members here - and not only for the reasons you might think. Calm down! What's the huge hurry? (Obviously starved of questions, for the reasons I mentioned). I WILL post questions.
Why didn't you start with them? The reason we don't have many HBs here is that hoax belief is dying, and the few remaining hover on YouTube, where proper debate is impossible.
-
Actually, Philthy, you've just spoilt it for the other members, with yet another "get on with it". You obviously didn't read my 'meta-discussion' where I said I'd post my principle question within 48 hours. I'll send the question as a PM to a member who is a least civil and not as demanding (and childish), and I hope it can and will be explained to me. But that will be it. I will be sure to mention the plethora of whining, griping, childlike members on this site on other forums and sites on the internet - not only youtube, you can be certain. I don't think its going to do your cause any good.
I'm not interested in hearing members 'answers' to other questions of mine on THIS site. Not with the bad grace with which they're given. I'll find them elsewhere.
-
One to add to the Bingo card:
Actually, Philthy, you've just spoilt it for the other members, with yet another "get on with it". You obviously didn't read my 'meta-discussion' where I said I'd post my principle question within 48 hours. I'll send the question as a PM to a member who is a least civil and not as demanding (and childish), and I hope it can and will be explained to me. But that will be it. I will be sure to mention the plethora of whining, griping, childlike members on this site on other forums and sites on the internet - not only youtube, you can be certain. I don't think its going to do your cause any good.
I'm not interested in hearing members 'answers' to other questions of mine on THIS site. Not with the bad grace with which they're given. I'll find them elsewhere.
This is rich. Typical hoax believer attitude. You have no moral concern about insulting the hundreds of thousands of people who worked hard and long to send men to the Moon and can take justifiable pride in their accomplishments but we call you scientifically ignorant and your taint starts bleeding.
-
Edward, I'll say it yet again:
GET ON WITH IT.
Don't think that asking your "principle [sic] question" will be some sort of "reward" for us. It's our requirement if you want to be taken seriously.
-
I rest my case.
-
But...that 48 hours was like..........3 or 4 days ago
Phil
GET ON WITH IT!!
Sheesh
-
All of you see my last post No.64 (under my original question) to see how wrong you are. Andromeda - you deserved every 'ad hominem' you received (in my opinion) and I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?
Sure you are. Doesn't make it right though.
ChrLz, why did you erroneously and misleadingly state on October 11 that I haven't conceded a single thing?
Cos you didn't.
You failed to take note that on October 10, under my orginal question, Jason stated "Concession noted." (Post no 34.) Smartcooky immediately thereafter, quotes ChrLz, and adds that "...we might have the one thousand and oneth name here." But how can that be, when I use the identical name and number on youtube? In any event, Smartcooky should have said: "...the one thousandth and one name here." Not too 'smart' after all.
And I could register your name on 50 forums, so what?
Wait a second, a member mentioned that hoax believers never correct each other.
Yup. But members here correct each other all the time, the difference being that members here say "Cool, I didn't know that" as opposed to HB types who say "That cannot be"
Why then Jason, did you not correct either ChrLz or Smartcooky and inform them that I had indeed conceded a particular point? Andromeda purposefully sifted through dozens of my comments until she found two where I was specifically joking in response to a believer who continually used the word 'crap', which I never usually use - or other unsavoury language.
If you post crap, why are you surprised to have it called as crap?
The comment on 'the beeping noise' was also purely in fun, as the video clip pertaining thereto was humerous. Yet she misleadingly posted only these comments.
HB types believe all manner of rubbish. Why should you get special treatment?
So is this what Apollohoax is all about? No better than any hoax believer site. As much as hoax believers try to vilify believers, the opposite is true of believers trying to depecate non-believers.
AH is about the facts of the matter. You just don't like that much.
The strangest thing of all, and which none of you seem to have realised, is that you are not doing your cause any good. There are few hoax believers on this site, and it is not always because they cannot understand any of the science presented. What is the purpose of a site purporting to debunk hoax claims, but there are few comments from hoax believers? From what I have seen, this site consists mainly of believers discussing the Apollo programme amongst themselves and congratulating themselves on how wonderful it was. The pompous, haughty attitude of many members here does this site a great disservice. Hoax believers will not want to be bothered with this site or persons on it, if you continue in this manner. As important as presenting scientific facts are here, it is important to present them in a civil fashion. I suggest that you don't disregard my comments too easily. It is very apparent to me as someone from the outside. You do want to convert hoax believers, do you not?
Of course it never occurred to you that HBs are plain flat out wrong? Or it never occurred to you to present evidence, no?
Kiwi, although I respect older persons, you come across as cantankerous and extremely rude. "Pull yourself together", "stupid", "get out of the fire", "get on with it", etc. Please, Kiwi. What is it with members here that they are all trying to tell me what to do? I had never addressed any comment to you, Kiwi. Did your mother never tell you that "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it?"
There is nothing nice to say about hoaxies. Kiwi is a gentle soul, and you are using ad hom to beat the band.
The distinct impression is that members here are HOPING that any new hoax believer posting on this site WILL turn out to be simply argumentative, or worse, a 'troll'. In my case, this is completely untrue. I would like answers, which so far I am getting - but in between the argumentative comments.
Consider your own first impression.
I said before, that I don't spend hours a day on this site, but I will post questions, including a specific one which involves the NASA website, and which Andromeda (rather childishly, I might add, considering her unjustifiably inflated opinion of herself) has placed a bet on. You will all regard this as another 'rant', but what I have said here is very important - if you want to advance belief in the Apollo programme. If it was so uncontested around the world, this site wouldn't exist, would it?
Whee, more ad hom. This site exists as a point of information and discussion. Your inneptitude is another point of discussion.
So what is it going to be? Are you all going to post a flurry of comments advising me to 'get on with it'? I'll say it again: "I'll post my questions when I have the time to do so." The question regarding NASA's image is very lengthy and will require some time to type. As one of your more astute members said to other members: "Relax". The very fact that you are paying me so much attention, proves how few hoax believers actually visit or sign up on this site. I have incidentally, accepted the reasons given for no dust being visible on the LM's footpads, proving many members wrong in their assumptions of me.
That depends on whether you get on with it or not?
Nevertheless, as you are all 'frothing at the mouth', (something which I sincerely hope is addressed in the near future and minimised), I will post my NASA website image related question within the next 48 hours. I hope it can and will be explained. If you would prefer me not to post any other questions, inform me thereof. I will simply continue disbelieving, and posting my views on other sites and forums. It's up to you.
No, it's up to you whether you meaningfully engage or not. So far, your insulting manner is not winning any friends.
-
Andromeda - you deserved every 'ad hominem' you received (in my opinion) and I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?
Your entitlement to an opinion does not grant it inviolable respect. Your ad hominem attacks are not justified, nor are they productive. Leave them behind and deal with the substance of your disbelief if that is what you came here to discuss.
Andromeda purposefully sifted through dozens of my comments until she found two where I was specifically joking in response to a believer who continually used the word 'crap', which I never usually use - or other unsavoury language. The comment on 'the beeping noise' was also purely in fun, as the video clip pertaining thereto was humerous. Yet she misleadingly posted only these comments.
What is misleading here is the suggestion that Andromeda purposefully quoted those two comments. She posted links to three YouTube videos without drawing attention to any specific comments. It was me who quoted your comments. If you make those comments on a public forum you can expect them to be held up as examples of your behaviour. If you openly admit to yanking the chains of others in other places, yes you can expect them to be used here as examples to support our view that that is just what you are doing here.
If you're going to resort ot ad hominem attacks, at least direct them to the correct person.
You do want to convert hoax believers, do you not?
This is not about conversion, this is about discussion. We're not on any mission here.
The distinct impression is that members here are HOPING that any new hoax believer posting on this site WILL turn out to be simply argumentative, or worse, a 'troll'. In my case, this is completely untrue.
Rubbish. In your case this is exactly what you are turning out to be.
Andromeda (rather childishly, I might add, considering her unjustifiably inflated opinion of herself) has placed a bet on.
How dare you? You don't know the people on this site, and you certainly don't know Andromeda. How do you know what she bases her opinion of herself on? I assure you, it is most certainly NOT unjustly inflated. She knows far more about science, Apollo and many other things than you do. Hell most of us here know more than you do. Andromeda, in particular, since you singled her out, has worked damn hard to get where she is now, and she should be justly proud of her achievements. I know her. You don't. Don't you dare try to suggest anyone here has an unjustifiably inflated opinion of themselevs.
If it was so uncontested around the world, this site wouldn't exist, would it?
Ignorance is sadly widespread. I'd gladly see sites like this disappear if it meant we could be spared the trolls, the ignorance, the abuse and the publicitry obsessed individuals who don't care what they say as long as they get attention.
"I'll post my questions when I have the time to do so." The question regarding NASA's image is very lengthy and will require some time to type.
Oh spare us the excuses. You just posted a huge lengthy rant, and you came back and posted another comment after that. Why don't you have these questions already typed out if they are so key to your discussion?
I have incidentally, accepted the reasons given for no dust being visible on the LM's footpads, proving many members wrong in their assumptions of me.
You couldn't sound any less sincere about that. You are yanking our chains. We've seen it before. You admit to it in other places. You want to prove people wrong in their assumptions stop doing the very things we all assume you will do, like posting this long, pointless waffle, and get to the point.
I will post my NASA website image related question within the next 48 hours.
Why couldn't you just post it when you first came on here? If you had time to write all the posts you have so far done so, you had time to post that question.
I frankly don't care what you think of our attitudes. I don't care whether you believe in Apollo or not. I do care when you start insulting other members here in place of posting anything meaningful.
-
I'll send the question as a PM to a member who is a least civil and not as demanding (and childish), and I hope it can and will be explained to me. But that will be it.
Oh, how convenient for you. You'll hide away your discussion of this important question where no-one can see it and where you will therefore not be held to any public accoutability for your response.
Pathetic. If your question is so critical why are you afraid to put it out in public?
I will be sure to mention the plethora of whining, griping, childlike members on this site on other forums and sites on the internet - not only youtube, you can be certain. I don't think its going to do your cause any good.
Do you think you're the first to do that? We've had people doing that for years. We've had people coming on here just so they can get banned and crow about it on other forums. Members here have been subjected to personal attacks all over the net. Most recently one person has tried badly imitating members, or using their names in other places to smear our reputations. The threat of legal action shut him up quite swiftly.
You're not remotely new or original, and I am genuinely saddened to see you confirming our assumptions despite your ongoing assertion that they are all unjustified.
-
I said before, that I don't spend hours a day on this site, but I will post questions, including a specific one which involves the NASA website, and which Andromeda (rather childishly, I might add, considering her unjustifiably inflated opinion of herself) has placed a bet on. You will all regard this as another 'rant', but what I have said here is very important - if you want to advance belief in the Apollo programme. If it was so uncontested around the world, this site wouldn't exist, would it?
So what is it going to be? Are you all going to post a flurry of comments advising me to 'get on with it'? I'll say it again: "I'll post my questions when I have the time to do so." The question regarding NASA's image is very lengthy and will require some time to type. As one of your more astute members said to other members: "Relax". The very fact that you are paying me so much attention, proves how few hoax believers actually visit or sign up on this site. I have incidentally, accepted the reasons given for no dust being visible on the LM's footpads, proving many members wrong in their assumptions of me.
Nevertheless, as you are all 'frothing at the mouth', (something which I sincerely hope is addressed in the near future and minimised), I will post my NASA website image related question within the next 48 hours. I hope it can and will be explained. If you would prefer me not to post any other questions, inform me thereof. I will simply continue disbelieving, and posting my views on other sites and forums. It's up to you.
I remember watching a showman at work in at a fair once. Excellent the way he kept the crowd on the edge of its toes waiting for the ride that was to come. I cannot remember the crack he used as the gates opened but with a warm titter at the final words from the showman the crowd fell forward to the ride that was now ready. His job was to entertain the crowd whilst the ride was reset. From what I remember of the ride, wall of death type thingy, it was OK I suppose. But I remember the showman, not what he was girding us for.
Same here, the waffle so far is outstripping what you may be about to provide. You have it, or you do not. I think you do not. The time taken to type this up there would have been the question days ago (though I suspect you can copy it from what you have).
-
After I posted my first question, which was IMMEDIATELY after I joined up incidentally, I received a few comments which I thought were uncalled for,
Such as what? Immediately after your first post you got a bunch of answers poitning out the flaws in your assumptions about billowing dust. Was that uncalled for?
-
The people on this forum are some of the nicest people I know. If they are impatient, well ,they have good reason to be.
So please, I am asking you, at least present part of your argument. If you are trying to make yourself and your case look bad with this incessant, long winded, dilly dallying, well, you are eminently succeeding.
Otherwise leave, just leave; you are wasting all of our, including your own, time.
-
The way it went on the dust thread was this.
You asked a question which was based around an incorrect expectation.
The flaws in your expectation were pointed out to you.
You responded by calling some members stupid.
It went downhill from there.
It is true that years of dealing with HB types has meant we tend to take an attitude towards HBs a primary school teacher might take to one of her pupils. Our level of condescension is directly related to the degree of bravado the HB arrives with. I'd say you arrived with a somewhat average level.
But you fired the first ad hominem so it's a bit rich for you to complain about a spiral of incivility.
-
GET ON WITH IT!!
GET ON WITH IT.
You know what?
He won't... He won't because he can't.
He has nothing to add that hasn't been added before, and no question to ask that has not been asked before.
In short, he brings nothing new to the table. He's just another fruit-loop Hoax Believer, exhibiting the same patterns we see from them over and over.
He's trying to play games... well I'm not playing them any more. I will not answer or respond to any more of his posts on this thread until he asks a bona-fide question to do with Apollo.
-
Wow, Edwardwb1001. You really are behaving very childishly for someone who threw such (attempted) insults at me. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/25r30wi.gif)
I didn't quote you from YouTube at all - I provided links to videos you had commented on. Jason pulled up particular comments. Here is a simple way to tell us apart - one if us is J-A-S-O-N and the other one is A-N-D-R-O-M-E-D-A.
Also, if you are going to correct other people's spelling and grammar, I think you meant "principal" argument rather than "principle".
I'll just leave this here:
Counting down to the banhammer in 5... 4...
-
What is the purpose of a site purporting to debunk hoax claims, but there are few comments from hoax believers?
If they cannot take criticism of their pet theories and storm off in a huff, throw a tantrum in order to get banned, and/or attempt to delete all of their posts, that's not our problem, it's theirs.
You do want to convert hoax believers, do you not?
They have to want to convert. If all they want to do is present their pet theories and be placated, there is little we can do to change their minds for them.
I would like answers, which so far I am getting
Yes, when you actually ask questions.
if you want to advance belief in the Apollo programme.
We want to advance an accurate understanding of the Apollo program's technical and historical details, which many distribute falsehoods about.
If it was so uncontested around the world, this site wouldn't exist, would it?
If ignorance weren't the default state, schools wouldn't exist.
The question regarding NASA's image is very lengthy and will require some time to type.
As did this post, it would seem.
If you would prefer me not to post any other questions, inform me thereof.
On the contrary, it would seem most of the responses you have received are quite eager for your questions, rather than just promises of questions.
I will simply continue disbelieving, and posting my views on other sites and forums. It's up to you.
This sounds suspiciously like a "take my ball and go home" threat, under the assumption that your metaphorical ball is the sole object of our interest.
-
I'll send the question as a PM to a member who is a least civil and not as demanding (and childish), and I hope it can and will be explained to me. But that will be it.
Oh, how convenient for you. You'll hide away your discussion of this important question where no-one can see it and where you will therefore not be held to any public accoutability for your response.
Pathetic. If your question is so critical why are you afraid to put it out in public?
Agreed. Whoever this specially-selected person is, I hope they copy and paste Edwardwb1001's message for all to see. That is, after all, how a forum works.
-
GET ON WITH IT!!
GET ON WITH IT.
You know what?
He won't... He won't because he can't.
Edward: Get on with it! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1YmS_VDvMY)
Fred
-
There are however, a few points which I will mention over my next few posts which have not (according to my viewpoint) been satisfactorily answered, some of which do not involve physics in any form. Perhaps they will be answered here.
Several posts have come and gone and we still have no substantive contribution, only badgering about manners and promises that you will one day get to your point. And three days later we only have a vague promise you will get to your point.
I will post my NASA website image related question within the next 48 hours. I hope it can and will be explained.
Edward, this may be a new place to you, but you have come to a community with a long history. It is a standard conspiracist trick to walk into a community with a special pleading that the long agreed to ways operating need to be modified just this time. The claims of mistreatment are frequently a ploy to change the terms of the debate by cajoling members into being conciliatory and allow the hoax believer to shift the burden of proof from away from the hoax claim. Whether this is your intent or not is irrelevant because it has happened often enough that we simply do not let newcomers adjust the term of the discussion. This section of this forum is designed for hoax related discussion, take complaints to the general discussion section, where they may get a better reception, and get on with your points about an Apollo hoax.
ETA: In the lower right corner of each post, there is a link that says "Report to Moderator" if you feel you are being mistreated, please make use of that link rather than publicly whining about it.
-
Edward,
As you know, I initially rejected your registration here. I rejected it because your information (email address, username, and IP address) made me suspect that you might be either a spammer, a troll, or a sockpuppet of someone who had been banned previously. I don't normally tolerate any of those three things here, but at the request of one of the other members I gave you a second chance. Now you're making me regret giving you that second chance because you're proving that my suspicions were correct.
You don't like being grouped with the other hoax believers, and you don't believe we can predict your behaviour before you even act. But it's true... the vocal hoax theorists are all the same. You all come in here with guns blazing, insulting the other members of the forum, and then act like the victim when people are slightly rude to you in return. And you never actually provide the proof that Apollo was faked that you claim to have.
Prove us wrong. Stop following the same script as all of the other hoax believers and actually make your arguments that you believe will prove Apollo was a hoax. Show us that you actually believe that and aren't just trying to provoke us.
GET ON WITH IT!
But before you do, I expect you to apologize to all of the people you have insulted.
Consider this your first official warning. If you don't heed it then I will place you under moderation and all of your future posts will require my approval before they appear in the forum. I'm sure you don't want that, I'm pretty busy and may not get around to approving your posts for hours (or possibly days).
-
Hear, hear, LunarOrbit.
-
Not quite playing out as you hoped, Eddie? :D
oh, and..
get on with it.
-
I'm patiently waiting for the debate to begin.
-
Edward, the problem is, most of us just want to have a discussion on Apollo. We don't want to have to jump through hoops, or have meta-discussions about how we should address you. And we thought that you wanted to discuss Apollo as well. If not, why did you come here?
I won't tell you to get on with it. But I will say, I wish that Hoax proponents in general would spend more time talking about what they consider to be serious points than in giving us teasers about what they will, perhaps, one day tell us.
-
I'm patiently waiting for the debate to begin.
Jay
While you're waiting, could you answer my questions at Reply #50 in the Lunar dust thread please?
I'm just curious about what you'd said about the Descent Engine and gas pressure.
-
Hi Peter, I just answered you over there myself. Hopefully my answer is at least somewhat as good as Jay's.
-
You know, I don't spend hours on here every day, either. Probably not even an hour, and I check back several times over the course of the average day. There's just not all that much going on here--also, it seems I type faster than average, because I'm not sure I've ever put fifteen minutes into typing a post.
-
You know, I don't spend hours on here every day, either. Probably not even an hour, and I check back several times over the course of the average day.
I just have this as a bookmark on my browser toolbar
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=recent
One click on the icon and I can see all the latest posts instead of having to trawl through the whole board looking for them.
-
I said I'd post my principle question within 48 hours. I'll send the question as a PM to a member who is a least civil and not as demanding (and childish), and I hope it can and will be explained to me.
Well, what is the question?
-
<snip>
All together now... "Awwwwww"
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maw5nrHA531qhy78jo1_500.jpg)
-
Pretty sure it's been over 48 hours now. If he doesn't post the question, I'm going to jump.
I'm not on a ledge or anything, I'll just jump on the spot and nothing much will happen.
-
I'm patiently waiting for the debate to begin.
Well people, it seems Edward likes me for some reason or another and dropped a long PM in my box. The 48hours have passed and now I'm responsible for the delay.... :-)
Here is his message:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes, it's the old 'star' question again, but this time, the other way around. I fully understand (and have from the very beginning) why stars would not be visible in the lunar sky, using a camera or other optical instruments. As we know, the astronauts stated many times that it was difficult to see stars with the naked eye, although I think it was Eugene Cernan who said that it was very difficult, yet possible if he shielded his eyes from bright light sources.
This question therefore, is not the tired old (very much explained) one of why there are no stars in any photographs taken from the lunar surface. It is however, about why the astronuats said that they could not see any with their naked eyes (through their visors), and why Armstrong would have said that "the sky is a deep black" in cislunar space. As you know, Collins said that the stars were very visible on a Gemini mission, but the point is not whether he was in earth's shadow or not, as according to the NASA image (the link to which I'll give in a moment) he should have been able to see the stars he mentioned whilst in orbit on the sunlit side of the earth.
The NASA website contains an image (which has been on the website since 21 June 2007 - so NASA has obviously given their approval thereof ) by a professional astronomer by the name of Jerry Lodriguss, who's other work NASA also showcases, which is entitled: 'Stars and the solstice sun.' The page is at: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html
Here you will see Lodriguss' impression of how the sky would appear during daytime on earth - if there were no atmosphere to scatter light from the sun. Here (in Lodigruss' photo/picture) we have a blazing sun, and at the same time we have thousands of stars brightly visible throughout the sky, even easily visible right next to the sun and behind the sun's corona. This is corroborated in comments following the image by a professional astronomer, verifying Lodriguss' image.
Surely this is how stars should also appear in the sky from the surface of the atmosphereless moon? The only difference would be the glare from the surface of the moon, but given the clarity and luminosity of the stars as indicated in the image, surely glare from the moon would not be enough to obliterate every star?
NASA, in a brochure of theirs of the Johnson Space Center, (which a family member sent to me from Houston) state categorically in a caption which accompanies a photograph of a recreated scene, in which two Apollo astronauts are standing on the moon with a pitch black sky in the background: 'The Lunar Landscape features two spacesuited figures, the Lunar Rover Trainer - and no stars. The astronauts could not see stars from the moon's surface.' (verbatim). Note that they specifically state that '...the Lunar Landscape features...NO STARS', and that 'The astronauts COULD NOT SEE STARS from the moon's surface.'
The Space Center does not refer to astronauts not being able to capture stars with their cameras, or say that stars were not visible in photographs. They state that stars were simply not visible to the astronauts. This correlates with the mock-up at the museum which portrays the astronauts as standing on the moon with the backdrop of a black, starless sky. If NASA in their caption were referring only to stars not being visible in photographs, surely they would have, and should have, portrayed stars in the pitch black sky beyond the astronauts in the mock-up, and as it would have looked to the astronauts' naked eyes - without using a camera. But they don't. This view seems to be contradicted by the image cited above on NASA's own website.
According to the NASA webpage, they should portray the sky behind the astronauts (in the mock-up) and to any museum visitor as being star-filled, as visitors are not observing the sky through an aperture adjusted camera, and neither are the astronauts. This, however would be in direct conflict with the belief that the reflection of the moon, and the sun's brightness obliterates virtually any vestige of stars. Is the NASA museum in Houston simply leaving the sky black, even to the camera-less and unaided naked eye, because it corresponds with all the lunar photographs which show a black void?
This would not be an accurate representation though, and of course conflicts entirely with NASA's image by Lodriguss on their own website. I agree that the stars in the lunar sky may not have been very important to the astronauts, but it is strange that they do not mention them to any degree. In fact, they even state that "...the stars were not visible in lunar orbit - only when we travelled behind the moon." This contradicts Lodigruss' (and NASA's) image. Stars should have been spectacularly visible anywhere in atmosphereless space to the astronauts unaided eyes, including from any point in lunar orbit. The astronauts also used star charts to navigate on the way to the moon. How would this be possible if, as Armstrong states, "The sky is a deep black", and that he did not see any stars or planets on his way to the moon? Anywhere in atmosphereless space the stars should be spectacularly bright (not in photographs) - according to the image on NASA's website.
Perhaps there is an explanation for the fact that stars would be spectacularly bright as viewed from an atmosphereless earth, but not from the moon. I posed this question on another forum to a chap who was staunchly pro-Apollo, and who seemed quite knowledgeable, and with whom I had been having an ongoing discussion for weeks on end, but after I had posed this question he failed to reply, not posting on the forum again. I saw him posting on another forum, and referred to the NASA image question, and once again, he immediately ceased to post.
Perhaps Apollohoaxnet members have an answer. Please post this message in its entirety on the website (including this paragraph) for them all to see. It is not, as one alleged that I am 'hiding away'. Why would I do that? I would simply rather not deal with some of them (not all), as they continually make assumptions and comments which are incorrect, such as that 'I am not going to post the question', and 'the 48 hours were 3 to 4 days ago', 'that I am insincere', etc.
My word... As you can see from when I gave the time frame of 48 hours, I have posted the question within that time period, and it wasn't simply a one or two sentence question as they might have thought. I think you know by now, that when I say I'm going to do something, I do it - such as joining the site within a time frame I gave, which I also adhered to.
So, hoping to hear member's comments on the NASA image!
All the best
Edward
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I really don't have much time to dive into this right now, but I'm pretty sure many of you are willing to help and answer.
-
Awfully wordy for something that could have been asked in a few lines. Reminds me of Patrick.
-
Awfully wordy for something that could have been asked in a few lines. Reminds me of Patrick.
Patrick typically used excessive words to make himself seem more educated. Edward's sometimes awkward phrasing seems to be more a struggle to describe his meaning while not always having the proper terminology or full understanding of the concepts. Both of those afflict us all, at times, and can be remedied.
-
Jason Thompson owes me a fiver.
The simple and straightfoward answer is that the photo by the astronomer is an artist's impression (he uses the words "might look like this" - emphasis mine) and does not take into account the way the human eye works. The astronauts were standing on a lit up plain, their eyes simply could not adjust and become dark-adapted enough to see stars when there was so much ambient light coming from the lunar surface (as well at the LM, suit of the other astronaut etc etc). It's simply to try this out for yourself - on a clear night, walk from a brightly lit room straight outside and look up. How many stars to you see? None or very few, and remember the astronauts also has visors on which would have made seeing stars even more difficult.
-
So all this drama, and it comes down to an artistic rendition on APOD? And when even the APOD forum discussion about the composite image (http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=12418&p=86433) explains the actual situation?
-
Look at the caption for that photo. They have a composited an image of the Sun made by exposures taken through solar filters, onto an image that clearly took an hour or more of exposure to get. That's absurd.
-
So all this drama, and it comes down to an artistic rendition on APOD?
It would be funny if it wasn't so exasperating.
And when even the APOD forum discussion about the composite image (http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=12418&p=86433) explains the actual situation?
I didn't even see the forum discussion, although I said the same thing as they do so I am agreement.
Look at the caption for that photo. They have a composited an image of the Sun made by exposures taken through solar filters, onto an image that clearly took an hour or more of exposure to get. That's absurd.
Yep. The integration time of the human eye is about 0.1-0.2 seconds, which is why cameras with shutters open for minutes or hours at a time pick up dim objects a human wouldn't see naked eye.
-
The NASA website contains an image (which has been on the website since 21 June 2007 - so NASA has obviously given their approval thereof ) by a professional astronomer by the name of Jerry Lodriguss, who's other work NASA also showcases, which is entitled: 'Stars and the solstice sun.' The page is at: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html
First, the idea that NASA applies rigorous controls of "approval" over everything thing that appears on its servers is simply incorrect. APOD is a collaborative web site coordinated from Michigan Technological University that is hosted on NASA servers. It is not the official word of NASA.
Second, NASA has many web pages and publications that are used for many purposes. These purposes include non rigorous public relations and general information. It is up to the user of the information to determine which publications are suitable for the users intent. APOD is a general information web site, limiting is suitability for anything more than a general reference.
Third, it is almost always the case that people who question the Apollo landings do not differentiate between the official source of information and their personal interpretations, which are mostly in error. You are making this classic mistake in assuming that because NASA posted something, your interpretation of that post must carry the same authority.
-
It's an old, tired spin on an old, tired question. A conspiracy theorist tries to argue that an artist's depiction must some how be taken at face value in all its particulars because it appears on a site NASA controls, "therefore" NASA has approved it for every purpose anyone can possibly imagine. Every single painting, network TV visualization, and drawing that has appeared in some NASA publication has been dragged out and touted as "impossible, yet NASA-approved" by someone trying to trump up new charges to get attention. I really weep for the species if this is the best the the conspiracy theorists can come up with.
-
I keep looking but never able to see a giant eagle with some greenery near the Moon.
-
Edward, in no historical record, especially in interviews and items designed for general consumption, will there ever be perfect consistency.
The fact is that Apollo astronauts have noted that they could see stars with ease when in the umbra of the Moon, and with some difficulty (due to sunlight reflecting off the docked LM, or directly in through windows) during translunar and trans-Earth coast.
It is also a fact that the crews could generally not see stars from their suits on the lunar surface, due to the difficulty in avoiding all reflected sunlight. Armstrong and Aldrin certainly didn't have time to try it on their trip to the Moon, although they could see stars through the LM's optics (which could avoid stray sunlight).
Also, one of the crewmen on the later missions - Edward Mitchell? - someone will correct me - did go to the trouble of finding a large shadow to lurk in, and managed to block off enough light to view the stars directly. But in fact, the stars even at lunar night are not overwhelmingly better than from a good dark-sky site on Earth; our atmosphere attenuates only about 15% (IIRC) of the visible.
I hope that resolves your issue.
Edit to add: I went back and re-read your message. Simply put, the stars would be equally visible, or not visible, from an airless Earth, depending on the lighting conditions. With no atmosphere at noon, you'd have the same challenges of avoiding stray sunlight. The APOD picture doesn't change this; it's just a picture for popularization of science.
-
Jason Thompson owes me a fiver.
He paid up! ;D
-
Edward,
We're not going to do relay posting through middlemen. If you have something to say to us then post it directly into the forum, not in private messages.
If you do it again I will disable your ability to send private messages.
-
I think we can all agree that the question wasn't worth the drama.
-
Well, metadiscussion aside, I'm kind of disappointed by Edward's monograph. I thought there'd be something more substantive and not so... picked-over.
Edward, do you understand that the astronauts used optics for star sightings that were specifically designed to shield from stray light?
Do you understand that a sky can described as "black" whether or not stars are visible? If I stand under a bright light at the top of a tall mountain and look up at the midnight sky, I will describe it as "black". I will also describe it as "black" if I step away from the light and give my eyes time to adjust so I can see the stars.
Do you understand that NASA is not a monolithic entity, and that everything hosted under the nasa.gov domain isn't approved by some sort of central authority? Good grief, there are even a rew racy photos (in a strictly documentary context, of course) to be found at one well-known site hosted by NASA.
Also, how exactly does this fit into a "hoax" narrative? A popular-science representation for the public contradicts (through oversimplification) a summary-level quote and another recreation for the public. How does that translate into a hoax, or even some sort of deliberate misrepresentation, rather than normal variance in how a complex scenario is represented? How does this stack up against the staggeringly vast Apollo technical, scientific, and programmatic record?
[Edit: fixed typo]
-
It seems the expectation is that they should have reported one thing or the other, you can either see stars in cislunar space or you can't and any other answer is deemed prima face evidence of fraud.
What is it about light adaption of the human eye that HBs don't understand? Unless you're blind, you have eyes and can easily experience the effect. I haven't seen a single contradictory report from an astronaut (unless you willfully ignore context and insist that only your interpretation is correct, a favourite HB tactic).
-
I think we can all agree that the question wasn't worth the drama.
Indeed. I expected more than the most banal of hoax claims dressed up in an unoriginal and thoroughly amusing line of reasoning.
-
Edward,
We're not going to do relay posting through middlemen. If you have something to say to us then post it directly into the forum, not in private messages.
If you do it again I will disable your ability to send private messages.
My first and last relay LO.
-
I think we can all agree that the question wasn't worth the drama.
Have any HB questions EVER been worth the drama?
-
I think we can all agree that the question wasn't worth the drama.
Edwards point seems to have been the drama.
-
Good grief, there are even a rew racy photos (in a strictly documentary context, of course) to be found at one well-known site hosted by NASA.
Wait, there are?
And, yeah, hoax belief is never worth drama. But this was a new low in drama.
-
Well I think we can all agree that the people who inhabit this forum are a good deal smarter than wherever Edward had his experience with the "disappearing" poster.
Rather than run and hide, they have answered his question in a timely and efficient manner.
-
Good grief, there are even a rew racy photos (in a strictly documentary context, of course) to be found at one well-known site hosted by NASA.
Wait, there are?
See, that's how we know you really are a gal and not a guy pretending to be a gal.
A guy, whether Apollo fan or hoax believer, would immediately ask, "Where?"
-
When you said "racy photos," did you mean the Playboy Playmates on the Apollo 12 cuff checklists, Sts60?
I really am a girl, I just like Apollo 12. :)
-
You are correct, Laurel - and I believe you. (BTW, my boss was in a support room in the MCC during A12.)
-
"No Stars?" Really? This was the big reveal?
-
Well, that was an anti-climax. Who'd have thought it?
Personally, I've always been baffled by the 'no-stars proves hoax' argument. If NASA wanted to fake a sky full of stars, what would stop them, given they have access to all the world's astronomers? To me, the lack of stars, and the explanation as to why, is proof positive that the landings happened.
-
Personally, I've always been baffled by the 'no-stars proves hoax' argument. If NASA wanted to fake a sky full of stars, what would stop them, given they have access to all the world's astronomers? To me, the lack of stars, and the explanation as to why, is proof positive that the landings happened.
I'm glad you asked that one. That's one of my favorites from the late Bill Kaysing.
He says that there are no stars in NASA photos because if NASA had put them in, and any of them had been in the wrong place, any amateur astronomer would have immediately been able to spot this. He then went on to claim that Christa McAuliffe was killed by blowing up the space shuttle Challenger in order to prevent her from telling the world that stars really are visible from space.
So much fail. Well, let's look at that. Yes, NASA had access to any astronomer it wanted, as well as a whole staff of professional astronomers. So if there were plenty of professional astronomers to correct the star positions, why would they fear amateur astronomers? The whole problem of "misplaced" stars is know where they should be versus where they are in the photos. So if it's so easy for an amateur to detect that stars are out of place, why wouldn't it be easy for NASA to know this and to put the stars where they're supposed to be?
And why would the stars be in a different place anyway? The parallax from Earth to Moon is negligible.
Let's not even get into the Christa McAuliffe claim. That's just braindead.
-
Let's not forget the absurdity of suggesting the solution to being unable to position stars correctly being to omit them altogether. If they should have been there, then they guarantee everyone is going to think something is up.
-
Well I think we can all agree that the people who inhabit this forum are a good deal smarter than wherever Edward had his experience with the "disappearing" poster.
Rather than run and hide, they have answered his question in a timely and efficient manner.
Comparing the regulars here to hoax proponents is counter productive. To our purpose at least. If we want HBs to come here to present their thoughts we need to be as open to them as we can. Without HBs, this forum has lost its main purpose.
Lets welcome them and ask questions designed to test their understanding of what they believe.
-
Well I think we can all agree that the people who inhabit this forum are a good deal smarter than wherever Edward had his experience with the "disappearing" poster.
Rather than run and hide, they have answered his question in a timely and efficient manner.
Comparing the regulars here to hoax proponents is counter productive. To our purpose at least. If we want HBs to come here to present their thoughts we need to be as open to them as we can. Without HBs, this forum has lost its main purpose.
Lets welcome them and ask questions designed to test their understanding of what they believe.
Actually, that wasn't the comparison I was making.
-
See, that's how we know you really are a gal and not a guy pretending to be a gal.
A guy, whether Apollo fan or hoax believer, would immediately ask, "Where?"
Yeah--because I'm a girl, I just thought it.
-
While we wait how about playing guess the question.
I'll start;
Why are there no stars in the sky?
(actually that would be quite funny).
From page 8 of this thread.
This whole thing was a wind up.
-
Let's not forget the absurdity of suggesting the solution to being unable to position stars correctly being to omit them altogether. If they should have been there, then they guarantee everyone is going to think something is up.
In fact, if they had added fake stars, and even if they couldn't get them exactly the right places, it wouldn't necessarily be an astronomer who would catch them out, it would be a photographer.
Stars in the lunar sky in a photo like this....
(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/LunarStars.png)
...would certainly provoke a "what the hell is this?" response from any photographer worth his salt.
I would be asking questions about the type of camera they used to achieve this result, and the first question would be....
"How did you get the shutter speed fast enough to avoid blurring the moving rover and falling dust, while having the exposure long enough to expose stars?"
Even my Nikon F3 fitted with my 50mm f1.2 lens using 1990's 1600 ASA film would not be able to achieve this shot at any shutter speed.
-
Well, Edward's two most important questions have now been answered and there was nothing new about either of them.
So, is he now compelled to believe that the moonlandings actually happened? :)
I hope he has noticed that his latest question has been very well and unemotionally answered by one of the members he chose to insult more than once -- Andromeda -- whom he may not have realised is one of our female regulars.
The simple and straightfoward answer is that the photo by the astronomer is an artist's impression (he uses the words "might look like this" - emphasis mine) and does not take into account the way the human eye works.
The important part is, again, the word "might."
M35 (NGC 2168), the star cluster which is shown in the Apod, is a naked-eye or binocular sight, but if we tried to view it when the sun was that close our retinas would probably be quickly fried. So the picture is only a fanciful "might" and in fact impossible as far as the unshielded eye goes, and probably most cameras too.
I hope Edward recovers from his wounded feelings, remembers that it was he who started the insults, and returns to ask sensible questions. Hell, I got a great belly-laugh out of his erroneous description of myself. Why can't he do the same?
-
I hope he has noticed that his latest question has been very well and unemotionally answered by one of the members he chose to insult more than once -- Andromeda -- whom he may not have realised is one of our female regulars.
People so seldom realize we have any of those. Trust me--I should know. (And, yes, I once got a PM on BAUT--I won't use the other name--asking for pics. Because this is the internet, and he was a stoned teenager.)
-
...Andromeda -- whom he may not have realised is one of our female regulars.
People so seldom realize we have any of those. Trust me--I should know.
Yep, even Glom recently said something about us all being better men, although I think we all knew what he really meant.
-
Well, that was an anti-climax. Who'd have thought it?
Personally, I've always been baffled by the 'no-stars proves hoax' argument. If NASA wanted to fake a sky full of stars, what would stop them, given they have access to all the world's astronomers? To me, the lack of stars, and the explanation as to why, is proof positive that the landings happened.
Another thing worth noting is many Apollo astronauts were Gemini and even Mercury veterans.
The Apollo 11 astronauts certainly all were.
If stars should be visible in sunlit conditions, then these astronauts could use those experiences as the basis for telling how the stars looked in cis-lunar space and on the lunar surface, even if it was a hoax.
-
Perhaps Edward did not want to post such a ridiculous question "in public" in case his dearly held opinions got another drubbing?
I take images of the Sun, using a variety of equipment. I image in both white light (ie with a thin plastic sheet, not unlike Mylar, on the front of the 'scope which blocks the majority of the light from the Sun) and also in hydrogen-alpha (using a Lunt telescope that employs a Fabry–Pérot interferometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry%E2%80%93P%C3%A9rot_interferometer) to block all but the hydrogen-alpha portion of the solar output).
I can cheerfully report that I have never seen another star in the image, not matter how much I process the data in Photoshop. Maybe my images are faked too? In fact (if I use a typical HB belief system), my whole life must be faked too <disappears in a cloud of HB non sequiturs >
The Sun can also be viewed in a variety of wavelengths over at helioviewer.org. I've yet to see another star in any image. I'd be (slightly) interested to hear Edwards explanation of this? If his thinking is correct then my images and the images of thousands of other amateur and professional imagers should also contain stars.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Solar%20Imaging/th_0b1dd0f1.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Solar%20Imaging/0b1dd0f1.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Solar%20Imaging/th_01b47a1c.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Solar%20Imaging/01b47a1c.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Solar%20Imaging/th_5bffd8e6.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Solar%20Imaging/5bffd8e6.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Solar%20Imaging/th_b337ef83.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Solar%20Imaging/b337ef83.jpg)
-
Armstrong and Aldrin certainly didn't have time to try it on their trip to the Moon, although they could see stars through the LM's optics (which could avoid stray sunlight).
Apollo astronauts reported that the stars weren't all that easy to see even in the navigation optics; there are many such comments in the various mission reports. I can think of several good reasons, such as cabin lights, sunlight through the windows, not allowing enough time for dark adaptation, etc.
-
I can cheerfully report that I have never seen another star in the image, not matter how much I process the data in Photoshop.
This makes me appreciate what a feat it is for the coronagraph in the SOHO spacecraft to see background stars despite being pointed directly at the sun...
-
Actually, that wasn't the comparison I was making.
My apologies. In retrospect I obviously misread your post.
-
The hoax concern that "sometimes they said they could see stars, sometimes they couldn't -FAKE!!!1" strikes me like saying "sometimes the weather report tells me water falls from the sky, and sometimes it doesn't. Must be fake!"
The thing that I find so interesting about this is how it morphs. Originally, it was quite simple - the stars on the lunar surface should have been so blazingly bright that not only would they be capturable by cameras set to properly expose the surface, but the astronauts should have spent long stretches just gazing at them in awe. You know, rather than doing the work they were sent to do. When it became very evident that this was not true, the argument started to revolve around "some astronauts said they saw stars in orbit, some said they couldn't. Clearly, someone is lying". I've noticed the APOD image being dragged in, as though it was anything other than a rather fanciful sketch, not well thought out by the artist.
It seems that they believe there must be *something* about the stars that's wrong, and they'll keep plugging at it until they find something that will stick.
-
I know several people who, in a suitably dark site, can pick out the Andromeda galaxy with the naked eye. I can stand right next to them and peer as hard as I can and not see it at all. Fake?
-
And yet when there's a tiny spider crawling up the wall across the room... ;)
-
And yet when there's a tiny spider crawling up the wall across the room... ;)
Hey, that's different! I have spidey-sense!
-
The hoax concern that "sometimes they said they could see stars, sometimes they couldn't -FAKE!!!1" strikes me like saying "sometimes the weather report tells me water falls from the sky, and sometimes it doesn't. Must be fake!"
The thing that I find so interesting about this is how it morphs. Originally, it was quite simple - the stars on the lunar surface should have been so blazingly bright that not only would they be capturable by cameras set to properly expose the surface, but the astronauts should have spent long stretches just gazing at them in awe. You know, rather than doing the work they were sent to do. When it became very evident that this was not true, the argument started to revolve around "some astronauts said they saw stars in orbit, some said they couldn't. Clearly, someone is lying". I've noticed the APOD image being dragged in, as though it was anything other than a rather fanciful sketch, not well thought out by the artist.
It seems that they believe there must be *something* about the stars that's wrong, and they'll keep plugging at it until they find something that will stick.
You don't mean to say they're thrashing about for anything that could point towards their desired conclusion, do you?
-
I can cheerfully report that I have never seen another star in the image, not matter how much I process the data in Photoshop.
This makes me appreciate what a feat it is for the coronagraph in the SOHO spacecraft to see background stars despite being pointed directly at the sun...
To be fair though, the SOHO coronographs (it has two on board) have discs that blocks out the body of the Sun, to allow the cameras to record the faint corona elements. The discs are much larger than the apparent diameter of the sun as well.
(http://spaceweather.com/images2003/26jan03/coronagraph_sample.gif)
This is an image form the C3 coronograph.
-
twik wrote: (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=185.msg6947#msg6947)
The hoax concern that "sometimes they said they could see stars, sometimes they couldn't -FAKE!!!1" strikes me like saying "sometimes the weather report tells me water falls from the sky, and sometimes it doesn't. Must be fake!"
Ya know, I'm not even sure what Edward's claim is, and I hope he sees fit to clarify it. His PM-relayed post identified what he said were contradictions in different bits of items for public consumption and basically said there shouldn't have been. Is he actually saying this is evidence that Apollo as a whole was faked? Until he checks back in, we can't say for sure.
The thing that I find so interesting about this is how it morphs. Originally, it was quite simple - the stars on the lunar surface should have been so blazingly bright that not only would they be capturable by cameras set to properly expose the surface, but the astronauts should have spent long stretches just gazing at them in awe.
[Stargazer]"Quintzillions."[/Stargazer] Again, stars on the Moon are brighter than from the Earth, but not amazingly so... and you will always be looking at them through, at a minimum, some nice thick Lexan. On some thread here or elsewhere we kicked around the optical properties of the visor and shields.
You know, rather than doing the work they were sent to do.
Not part of Edward's argument so far, but yes, Apollo was a planetary science mission, not an astronomy mission, and the crews' time was very tightly constrained. Even so, we have at least one Apollo astronaut who did take the trouble to visualize stars during a lunar EVA.
When it became very evident that this was not true, the argument started to revolve around "some astronauts said they saw stars in orbit, some said they couldn't. Clearly, someone is lying". I've noticed the APOD image being dragged in, as though it was anything other than a rather fanciful sketch, not well thought out by the artist.
Great historical events of extended duration are ripe for this kind of cherry-picking; conspiracists often make unrealistic demands for perfect narrative consistency among sources widely varied in time and rigor. I can easily prove World War II was a hoax by this method.
It seems that they believe there must be *something* about the stars that's wrong, and they'll keep plugging at it until they find something that will stick.
[Spongebob]Yeah, well, good luck with that![/Spongebob] I have yet to encounter a hoax believer who really knows much of anything about astronomy. Over on BAUT, poor Solon tried to claim that he believed Apollo happened, yet due to some magic physics stars (and planets, etc.) were not visible outside of the ionosphere. He got rather badly wrapped around the axle when it was pointed out that these claims necessarily contradicted each other.
-
I hope he has noticed that his latest question has been very well and unemotionally answered by one of the members he chose to insult more than once -- Andromeda -- whom he may not have realised is one of our female regulars.
I haven't seen any evidence that my gender matters to him, TBH.
-
I know several people who, in a suitably dark site, can pick out the Andromeda galaxy with the naked eye. I can stand right next to them and peer as hard as I can and not see it at all. Fake?
You must learn the riddle of averted vision. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averted_vision)
-
The thing that I find so interesting about this is how it morphs.
They do that a lot.
Remember the picture of the astronaut coming down the ladder that they claimed was impossible to illuminate without fill in lighting? Mythbusters debunked it with a single light source and a surface with the same albedo as the moon to prove the fill in effect of reflected light. They now claim this is proof of how it was done (er...so the fact a photo claimed to have been taken on the lunar surface looks like you would expect it to look is evidence that it was faked..d'oh).
Also the claim that the earth you can see out of the window of Apollo 11, when it was half way to the moon, was a sticker (because it is written in HB lore that you cannot transgress the inpassable Van Allen belts). So to debunk this rot someone matched the weather patterns from weather satellites with the apollo photo (taken within a few hours) and they concurred. To further bury the sticker claim, someone took an image from the beginning of the transmission and the end and showed that the 'sticker' earth had infact rotated by the the amount you would have expected in that time. The new HB claim (built on the work that they did not do) is that the earth is rotating too fast. This claim is based on HB selected datum's. Any suggestion that their datum's are highly skewed to produce the result they want are ignored as is any attempt at error analysis to define the degree of accuracy of the methodology.
-
(because it is written in HB lore that you cannot transgress the inpassable Van Allen belts).
Some morph, some accrete, like the Van Allen Belts. At first it was the radiation would have given the astronauts an unacceptable risk of developing cancer, then it was they would have gotten sick and possibly died, then it was they would have been instantly killed. One HB went so far as to claim the spacecraft would have melted or exploded.
Each HB takes an erroneous claim of a previous HB and makes it just a little bit more dramatic but they're so stupid they don't know when to stop piling it on. The Latin term is "taurus cacas accretion. ", or TCA for short.
-
I know several people who, in a suitably dark site, can pick out the Andromeda galaxy with the naked eye. I can stand right next to them and peer as hard as I can and not see it at all. Fake?
You must learn the riddle of averted vision. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averted_vision)
(whispers) Psst, Chew. Andromeda has qualifications in physics and astrophysics, and has been an amateur astronomer and member of an astronomical society for some years now. She knows... :)
-
I know several people who, in a suitably dark site, can pick out the Andromeda galaxy with the naked eye. I can stand right next to them and peer as hard as I can and not see it at all. Fake?
You must learn the riddle of averted vision. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averted_vision)
(whispers) Psst, Chew. Andromeda has qualifications in physics and astrophysics, and has been an amateur astronomer and member of an astronomical society for some years now. She knows... :)
Yes :)
-
(Whispers) Even us lowly pilots know that trick.
-
I know several people who, in a suitably dark site, can pick out the Andromeda galaxy with the naked eye. I can stand right next to them and peer as hard as I can and not see it at all. Fake?
You must learn the riddle of averted vision. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averted_vision)
(whispers) Psst, Chew. Andromeda has qualifications in physics and astrophysics, and has been an amateur astronomer and member of an astronomical society for some years now. She knows... :)
Yes :)
Well, then, I withdraw my advice and my reference to Conan the Barbarian.
-
Just for the record....
As you know, Collins said that the stars were very visible on a Gemini mission, but the point is not whether he was in earth's shadow or not....
Yes, visible on the night side of the Earth. And why isn't that the point? Isn't the whole question whether or not stars should be visible in a sunlit area, whether cislunar space or the day side of the moon?
This one seems to be a close relative of the argument that, because early artist's conceptions of lunar landings showed the downblast digging a noticeable crater, the same thing should have happened when they actually landed.
-
As Neil Armstrong said when in the night side of the moon,
"Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns. "
See 02 23 59 20 CDR in the Apollo 11 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html) Technical Air-to-Ground Transcript
-
Yes and that one quote seems to have eluded our esteemed hoax believer research brigade over on the yt channel. Strange. I thought they were meticulous in their thorough research.
But then again they are the same group who reckon I never read "live tv from the moon"...
-
You'd have trouble doing research too if you were suffering violent convulsions as you thrash around looking for anything to use in your conspiracy fantasy.
-
It is worth noting that Yuri Gagarin was also unable to see stars in orbit due to glare from the sun, and then was later able to see them after he was in the shadow of the Earth.
I dug the original Russian transcript through google translate for one HB who also made a similar claim.
-
Reading the National Geographic article on the first Mercury sub-orbital lob, Alan Shepard couldn't see stars either (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stunned/2892931365/) on the day side.
-
Further to the visibility (or not) of stars from various regions in space and from the moon, and while I am considering replies to my earlier question, I'd like to bring up another point. When questioned by Partick Moore as to the visibility of stars, Armstrong states that in cislunar space "...the earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen". On page 8 of Aldrin's 2009 book 'Magnificent Desolation: The long journey home from the moon' however, he (Aldrin) states the following: "The sun was always shining, yet the sky around us was a constant black blanket, dotted with millions of stars". Armstrong intimates that he saw no stars or planets in cislunar space, whereas Aldrin states that he saw 'millions of stars'. How could this be?
-
Rather than looking at statements that may or may not have been written by a ghost-writer that's never been near a rocket, why don't you try learning something about how a human eye works?
That way you can use scientific knowledge instead of ignorant and/or biased interpretations of cherry-picked out-of-context quotes to determine the veracity of a statement.
-
How could this be?
This could be because you are looking at non specific sources. You are arbitrarily juxtaposing quotes from TV interviews and popular books is a poor way to get an understanding of the real world. But it does reveal something about the reasons you do not understand the Apollo program. The "just asking questions" motif is a well worn tool of those who have already made up their minds but won't admit it.
All that is required to understand is for you to go outside and look at the sky.
-
Further to the visibility (or not) of stars from various regions in space and from the moon, and while I am considering replies to my earlier question, I'd like to bring up another point. When questioned by Partick Moore as to the visibility of stars, Armstrong states that in cislunar space "...the earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen". On page 8 of Aldrin's 2009 book 'Magnificent Desolation: The long journey home from the moon' however, he (Aldrin) states the following: "The sun was always shining, yet the sky around us was a constant black blanket, dotted with millions of stars". Armstrong intimates that he saw no stars or planets in cislunar space, whereas Aldrin states that he saw 'millions of stars'. How could this be?
I and others have already addressed this. You are putting together interviews and books in a popular context with the established record - where it was difficult but not impossible to see stars during the translunar cruise because of direct and reflected sunlight - and making a naive assumption that every popular description will match the nuanced technical account.
Why is that? Is there some sort of law or rule that popular accounts should be perfectly slaved to the technical reality? I am perfectly comfortable that popular accounts after the fact will contain simplifications and dramatic license; that's the way it is with all activities.
And, as I asked in reply #190 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=185.msg6953#msg6953), are you claiming that such lack of narrative perfection is some sort of proof or evidence of Apollo being hoaxed? If so, how does that stack up against the scientific, technical, and programmatic evidence for Apollo?
-
he (Aldrin) states the following: "The sun was always shining, yet the sky around us was a constant black blanket, dotted with millions of stars".
Aldrin didn't actually say he could see the stars, did he? At least not with his naked eyes?
Like every other astronaut Aldrin was well aware that the stars were out there even if he couldn't see them at some particular moment because of stray sunlight or interior lighting. In fact, Aldrin was especially aware of the stars because he had originally trained as a CMP - Command Module Pilot - whose chief duty is navigating the CSM. Star sightings are taken through a telescope to align the inertial reference platform that ensures they're pointing the right way.
These "P52" operations were done many times during each mission, both in sun and shadow. THe scopes were designed to exclude stray sunlight, and eyecups were provided for the observer to block stray interior lighting from reaching his eyes.
As CountZero says, take some time to learn how the human eye works. Also learn what a "visual magnitude" is in astronomy and how its calculated. Look up the magnitudes of various stars (including the sun) and do some math to see just how many times brighter the sun is than a typical star that is otherwise visible to the human eye at night.
And then realize just how silly it is to complain about astronauts easily seeing skies full of stars when the sun is one of them.
-
Armstrong intimates that he saw no stars or planets in cislunar space, whereas Aldrin states that he saw 'millions of stars'. How could this be?
Armstrong never looked that hard? Aldrin looked through the optics a lot as part of his role on the flight and Armstrong didn't? Aldrin had sharper eyes than Armstrong? Armstrong was answering a technical question about the flight, whereas Aldrin was writing a book for the masses?
Discrepancies like that are commonplace and expected. We don't expect every astronaut to have had the same experience because they all had different things to do during the missions that would result in different personal experiences of the flight.
-
When questioned by Partick Moore as to the visibility of stars, Armstrong states that in cislunar space "...the earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen".
Excuse the snip. After this.
Has this not been questioned before? I think that the word you use, "states", is not the correct here, "observes" is probably right. The tone of the question asked and the answer, (available on the web and I have a copy on a DVD), the tone is an observation not a definitive black or white answer it would appear to me.
I would say that is quite clear from the interview that it contains much more than your supposition that you seem to have left out (?), that interview by the way was on public TV and available today. The next word after the last you quote is "although". Wonder where that leads.
-
Armstrong intimates that he saw no stars or planets in cislunar space, whereas Aldrin states that he saw 'millions of stars'. How could this be?
It's because cherry-picking quotes and trying to manufacture a dilemma out of them has never been a particularly honest or productive way to approach history. As has been belabored, your new argument is based upon the wrong-headed presumption of narrative consistency, aided by your having ripped each of these statements torn and bleeding from any meaningful context. Your answer is as it has always been: whether stars are seen by people in space depends on a number of factors that vary greatly from situation to situation. There is no One True Answer that covers everyone's experience in all situations, so don't expect your critics to agree that there should be. Logically speaking, you've foisted a straw man and then tried to disembowel it using a false dilemma.
The Armstrong quote is from a 1970 television interview on Sir Patrick Moore's famous program The Sky at Night. Here is a fuller context:
Sir Patrick Moore: Mr. Armstrong, I do realize that when you were on the Moon you had very little time for gazing upwards. But could you tell us something about what the sky actually looks like: the Sun, the Earth, the stars (if any), and so on?"
Neil Armstrong: The sky is a deep black, uh, when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from cislunar space -- the space between the Earth and the Moon. The, uh, the Earth is the only visible object, other than the Sun, that can be seen, although there have been some reports of seeing planets -- I myself did not see planets from the surface but I suspect they might be visible.
Why do the conspiracy theorists cut off poor Armstrong in mid-sentence like that? Probably because the rest of his statement completely undermines their false dilemma: Armstrong clearly states that other crews had different viewing experiences and that he doesn't have a problem with that. This is the essence of cherry-picking, and it's a very dishonest practice.
Also you misquote him. Although he mentions "cislunar space," he was clearly asked -- and has clearly given an an answer -- about viewing conditions from the Moon's surface. As you may be aware, the presence of a brightly-lit lunar surface significantly impairs one's ability to see faint objects such as stars whereas in cislunar space (i.e., from within the spacecraft) one can arrange to limit one's field of view, such as through the navigation optics, to shut out extraneous light sources.
This is what the crews of later missions did. When I spoke with the Apollo 14 LM crew individually, Ed Mitchell said that he could see stars from the lunar surface only if he walked into the shadow of the LM so as to eliminate the scatter and glare through his helmet visor, and crane his head upward for long enough to shut out the light from the surface and allow his eyes to adjust. Given the precautions one must take, it is not surprising to me that Armstrong failed to see any stars during his brief and busy EVA while other crews who spent more time and were allowed such leisure activities obtained better observations.
Moving on to Aldrin, you first have to contend with the fact that Magnificent Desolation was overtly co-authored by Ken Abrahams. So your obvious problem with using popular literature as a source is proving that it's really Aldrin's observation at that point and not Abraham's interpolation. Magnificent Desolation is mostly about Aldrin's life after NASA, so only the first couple of chapters deal with his astronaut's career. Chapter 1, from which your quote emerges, is largely fluff that tries to put the Apollo missions in an historical and political context. In fact, it's a rather dry narrative bereft of much emotional detail, and as such could have been abstracted from any of the already-existing descriptions of the Apollo 11 mission. Some of the language in the first three chapters, in fact, closely mirrors the post-flight debriefing. Plus there are a few technical errors. Hence it is unlikely that Abrahams had to interview Aldrin much, if at all, for the mission narratives and merely prepared them himself from existing source, peppering them with pleasant English to taste. There is no more personal insight in the first couple of chapters than in any of the dozens of other books written about the Apollo 11 mission, based on prior crew interviews. Hence it's more likely that the "dotted with millions of stars" is Abraham's embellishment than that it represents an actual reported observation from Aldrin.
Here is the paragraph in question:
On the way to the moon, we slept only about five hours each night. Our excitement and adrenaline made sleep elusive; besides, our schedule was full of tasks and preparations. We constantly monitored our progress, and fired small guidance rockets to check and correct our course. We also sent back live television broadcasts to give people on Earth a glimpse of our activities inside the spacecraft, such as making a ham-spread sandwich with the bread floating in zero gravity. We had to coordinate our times with Houston, since there was really no telling day from night in space. The sun was always shining, yet the sky around us was a constant black blanket dotted with millions of stars. One thing was certain: with each passing hour, the Earth was growing smaller and the moon was getting larger when we looked out our windows.
What is remarkable about this is that any of the regulars here could have penned a similar (and, in Gillianren's case, probably better) paragraph using only publicly available information about the Apollo 11 mission. In fact the entire chapter is written that way -- a dispassionate summary of the Apollo mission as a whole. Only if I were doing it, I would not have written it to imply that firing "small guidance rockets" would have had the ability to "check" the spacecraft's course. "Correct," yes, as stated, but the author here (almost certainly Abrahams) is writing basic background, not detailed observations. He already made one inconsequential mistake in the paragraph. Why not another? As I said above, there is practically no Aldrin-specific insight in this chapter.
-
Even if an astronaut had perfectly dark-adapted eyes, no glare, and an unobstructed view, he or she could not see "millions of stars" in space.
From Earth's surface under ideal conditions, a person with good eyesight might be able to see a few thousand stars in the visible hemisphere. There is only moderate atmospheric attenuation of starlight in the visible range, so the number visible in space (in the full sphere) could not be much more than (generously) a few tens of thousands.
-
Actually, that's one of the things I would have changed if I'd written the passage!
-
Try this...
On a cold, clear, moonless night in the middle of winter, drive to a rural location, well away from city lights, Usually in these conditions the "astronomical seeing" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_seeing) is very good. Turn off the car headlights and get out of the car. Allow a few minutes for "dark adaption". If you have stopped by a road, make sure you face away from the road so that the lights of oncoming cars don't ruin your night vision. Now look up. How many stars do you think you can see? 10,000? 100,000? A million? No, the answer is 1,500 to 2000 at best. In fact, there are only about 6000 stars either bright enough or close enough to Earth to even be potentially visible with the unaided eye.
Now try this...
On a cold, clear moonless night in the middle of winter, drive to your local sports field where teams are holding a practice session under floodlights. The floodlights have to be powerful enough that the grass is very clearly lit, i.e. the brightness you would expect a major sports event would be played under. Now look up. Now look up. How many stars do you think you can see? The answer is very few, probably none. You might see one ot two of the really bright ones; first magnitude stars such as Arcturus, Canopus, Sirius. You will be lucky to see many more.
This last scenario demonstrates the difficulty of seeing stars under less than ideal lighting conditions such as found in cislunar space and on the surface of the moon.
-
Answers to my question regarding the image/photo composite on (or linked to) NASA's website range from 'it did not receive NASA's blessing', to 'it is science fiction', to 'the glare of the other astronaut's spacesuit compounded glare on the moon'. Actually, I agree with the point that NASA may well not verify or support every image with which it is associated. Not too sure that one could simply disregard the image/composite as 'science fiction' or imaginings. Also do not think that a spacesuit or even the LM could have caused appreciable or much additional glare. Nevertheless, a number of interesting replies and explanations.
-
Regarding the variance in statements/observations between Armstrong and Aldrin regarding seeing stars in cislunar space, I agree that astronauts' comments might not always correlate exactly. The two statements however, are at enormous odds with each other. Perhaps Aldrin, (or the biographer) was using 'poetic licence', which would be fair enough in a book recalling years later, his experiences in space.
-
Also do not think that a spacesuit or even the LM could have caused appreciable or much additional glare.
Why not?
-
Not too sure that one could simply disregard the image/composite as 'science fiction' or imaginings.
Actually it is quite easy to disregard the composite image as fiction. Because it is.
That is why it was called a 'composite' image.
Also do not think that a spacesuit or even the LM could have caused appreciable or much additional glare.
Why not?
The LM was highly reflective, and the astronauts were wearing bright white suits.
In direct sunlight both would be very bright.
-
Also do not think that a spacesuit or even the LM could have caused appreciable or much additional glare.
Why not?
Beta cloth (the external covering of Apollo pressure suits, comprised of Teflon-coated fiberglass) has an absorbance of 0.24 (and an emittance of 0.91). That means it reflects 1-.24 = 76% of the visible light that hits it. The lunar surface, by comparison, has an average albedo of 0.12, i.e., it reflects only 12% of the visible sunlight that hits it, and much of that goes directly back toward the sun due to the "opposition effect". Only 8% is scattered at wider angles, e.g., toward the earth during most of the month and toward objects like the LM or an astronaut when they're off to the side.
This ought to be obvious from thousands of Apollo surface pictures.
The "gold" blankets on the LM descent stage are actually aluminized Kapton (not Mylar), with the aluminum on the rear surface of the top blanket. Kapton has a orange color, which is why the blankets look gold. Different LMs used different blanket designs, but Apollo 11's descent stage used 1/2 mil, 2, mil and 5 mil aluminized Kapton with absorbances of 0.56, 0.79 and 0.93 respectively. So the thickest and darkest of these blankets was still comparable in reflectivity to the lunar surface; the others were considerably brighter.
The LM ascent stage had a variety of coatings, some of which also changed from model to model. Some were dark, others (e.g., chrome-anodized aluminum) were quite reflective.
-
Speaking of composite photos on NASA websites, Youtube user 'awe130' has been having a hissy fit over the Apollo 11 mosaic
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863-69HR.jpg
Awe130 seems to think it a major scandal that NASA should sponsor such a "fraudulent" photograph on its own website. I really can't see what his problem is, since (as the caption clearly explains) it was contributed as a work of art by a volunteer who combined several other photos, including at least one taken when the LM was still in orbit. It is clearly labeled as to what it is and grouped with the other user-contributed mosaics. It is certainly not presented as an actual, original, untouched mission photo.
I personally think this is one of the most outstanding user-contributed composites on the ALSJ, one that probably captures Neil's subjective view from that location better than any real photo ever could. And I'm really annoyed that those who donate their own time to produce such works, let alone the labor of love that is editing a massive work like the ALSJ, should be subject to such petty and baseless complaints from people who seem to have nothing better than to find fault with the accomplishments of others.
-
Awe130 seems to think it a major scandal...
Sounds like the whisper has grown to a.... um, well, a smaller whisper.
-
Awe130 is one of the weirder hoaxers out there. And that's saying a lot -- they each have their own unique and often very colorful personalities.
He constantly uses the first-person plural 'we', yet refuses to say how many people he represents.
To dodge a question he'll say he only debates the Apollo landings -- and then bring up wholly unrelated topics such as TIROS 1, Red Bull Stratos and the ISS.
He claims to be "neutral" and is constantly appealing to "both sides" of the "debate" about the reality of what is probably the best documented engineering project in human history. Yet he constantly talks about his "whisper", as though a whispering campaign were the same thing as an open and honest debate.
He complains about being attacked but sees nothing wrong with "whispering" groundless charges of fraud (and worse) against the 400,000 talented and hardworking people who made Apollo happen.
And so on.
-
Further to the visibility (or not) of stars from various regions in space and from the moon, and while I am considering replies to my earlier question, I'd like to bring up another point. When questioned by Partick Moore as to the visibility of stars, Armstrong states that in cislunar space "...the earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen". On page 8 of Aldrin's 2009 book 'Magnificent Desolation: The long journey home from the moon' however, he (Aldrin) states the following: "The sun was always shining, yet the sky around us was a constant black blanket, dotted with millions of stars". Armstrong intimates that he saw no stars or planets in cislunar space, whereas Aldrin states that he saw 'millions of stars'. How could this be?
Whilst fully endorsing the replies of other posters regarding the use of popularised accounts to critique the technical record, I would also point out that in the BBC Patrick Moore interview from 1970, Armstrong actually states that from the lunar surface "...the earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen". His only reference to cislunar space is to mention that the sky there is also deep black, but he does not specifically mention the visibility of stars in cislunar space. You may infer that this is what he meant but it is not explicit.
During the mission (after passing into the Moon's shadow for the first time) Armstrong did say that stars had been visible only occasionally on the way to the Moon. I think that we may take this comment as a true indication of what Armstrong saw in cislunar space, rather than what you may think he implied in the later Patrick Moore interview.
I think that poster JayUtah was making this same point when he replied to you as follows:
"Also you misquote him. Although he mentions "cislunar space," he was clearly asked -- and has clearly given an an answer -- about viewing conditions from the Moon's surface. As you may be aware, the presence of a brightly-lit lunar surface significantly impairs one's ability to see faint objects such as stars whereas in cislunar space (i.e., from within the spacecraft) one can arrange to limit one's field of view, such as through the navigation optics, to shut out extraneous light sources".
-
The two statements however, are at enormous odds with each other.
Nonsense. You have little if any rejoinder to the restored context and analysis of those two statements. Simply repeating your original belief doesn't count.
Your claim is rejected. Move on.
-
Also do not think that a spacesuit or even the LM could have caused appreciable or much additional glare.
Are you able and willing to back up that belief with a photometric analysis? Here's some food for thought: polished aluminum is probably the most reflective of all the common materials you'll see in your lifetime. Beta cloth has a geometric albedo, as stated, of about 0.8. Solar influx is 1,300 W per square meter.
Please present your analysis confirming that such surfaces in sunlight would not cause "appreciable or much" glare.
-
I did not mean that neither the LM or astronaut's spacesuit would be reflective (perhaps even highly) in themselves. What I meant was that I found it unlikely that either the LM or astronaut's suit(s) would cause enough 'additional' glare in the wide open spaces on the moon to have an appreciable effect towards making it difficult to view stars, (as mentioned by a member in the forum) considering their small reflective surfaces in relation to their surroundings.
-
If by that you mean that the sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface would by itself be plenty to make it impossible to view stars with the naked eye, you are correct.
-
What I meant was that I found it unlikely that either the LM or astronaut's suit(s) would cause enough 'additional' glare in the wide open spaces on the moon to have an appreciable effect towards making it difficult to view stars, (as mentioned by a member in the forum) considering their small reflective surfaces in relation to their surroundings.
You seem to be arguing that the configuration factor within the field of view is the key factor in ocular sensitivity. Is it your belief that the eye does not calibrate to the brightest received illumination within the field of view? If that is your belief, please explain further.
An overhead street light occupies a very small solid angle within the viewer's field of view, yet dominates his ability to perceive dim objects. This is easily testable. As stated, the objects you name in addition to the lunar surface tend to occupy much larger solid angles in the configuration factor than a streetlight.
You seem to be doing little more than trying to handwave past otherwise testable and computable phenomena. You're simply begging the question repeatedly. This will not do. You rebuked the other members of this forum for improperly rejecting your claims and accused them of some sort of ideological bias. You now owe us an appropriate level of rigor. Or else you may concede that your claims amount to little more than supposition and conjecture and have been properly dismissed.
-
What I meant was that I found it unlikely that either the LM or astronaut's suit(s) would cause enough 'additional' glare in the wide open spaces on the moon to have an appreciable effect towards making it difficult to view stars, (as mentioned by a member in the forum) considering their small reflective surfaces in relation to their surroundings.
They won't have an 'additional' effect, they will have the dominating effect. If you place a bright object in your field of view your eye will adapt to that brightness, making it harder to pick out dimmer things around it. It doesn't matter how much of your field of view that bright thing takes up. Look at the sky on a moonless night and on a full moon if you doubt that one. You'll notice a great difference in how well your eyes adapt to seeing stars. Car headlights take up very little of anyone's field of view, but just watch a crowd of astronomers gathered around telescopes complain about losing their dark adaption when someone drives in with headlights on.
Your eyes will adapt to the brightest thing in their field of view, not to the thing that takes up most of it.
-
If what you are wearing is shiny and reflective that's going to affect what you can see in the dark, surely?
-
What I meant was that I found it unlikely that either the LM or astronaut's suit(s) would cause enough 'additional' glare in the wide open spaces on the moon to have an appreciable effect towards making it difficult to view stars, (as mentioned by a member in the forum) considering their small reflective surfaces in relation to their surroundings.
The important piece is in bold.
Just because you find it unlikely doesn't mean that it did not happen...after all, you might just have a hole in your understanding.
Go and stand near a streetlight at night. Can you see any stars? Or as Jason Thompson says, see how many stars you can see when the Moon is full. Then report your findings back here. You ight just plug one of the holes in your world-view.....
-
"Go and stand near a streetlight at night. Can you see any stars?" - Zakalwe. The ol' streetlight experiment. I have a bright streetlight
less than three metres from my front gate. I have carried out this 'experiment' many times incidentally, with always identical results, viz: I could see plenty of stars. Nevertheless, I tried it once more.
Looking up directly at the lamp, with it's encircling halo effect, I could easily make out a medium to faint magnitude star just outside the aforementioned halo, yet in my field of vision. Averting my eyes just past the halo to look directly at this star, I could easily make out many other stars. The streetlight had not had a great or very discernible effect on my ability to see stars, even when staring directly at the light. I was still aware of many stars twinkling in my peripheral field of vision. If I glanced away from the lamp's halo, although with it nonetheless in my field of vision, many hundreds of stars were easily discernible. Findings reported. What was I supposed to see/not see again, Zakalwe? There seems to be not only a hole in the veracity of your 'experiment', but also one in your own world-view.
On NASA's 'Cosmicopia' - http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html , the following question is asked: 'Is it true that in space a person is not able to see stars all around them like we do on Earth?" A Dr. Eric Christian answers as follows: "No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear." (Obviously he did not hear this from Armstrong). He goes on to explain that confusion arose due to stars not being visible in photos or video images of space. He continues: "Luckily, the human eye handles the different light levels much better than a camera does."
The failure of the streetlight 'experiment' explained, but not Armstrong's 'observations'.
-
but not Armstrong's 'observations'.
As I have already explained, Armstrong was wearing a thick helmet attached to a bright white suit standing on a brightly lit landscape.
-
The failure of the streetlight 'experiment' explained, but not Armstrong's 'observations'.
Apparently your eyesight is truly exceptional. Unfortunately it does not seem to be matched by your ability to reach a valid logical conclusion from a stated set of facts.
-
I'm referring to Armstrong's 'observation' of seeing no stars whatsoever whilst in cislunar space, Andromeda.
-
A Dr. Eric Christian answers as follows: "No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear."
I do not see a Dr. Eric Christian listed as an astronaut, which would be consistent with his use of the phrase "I hear...".
It is a general principle in general inquiry as well as in law that direct testimony is preferred over hearsay. Since we can all agree that Mr. Neil Armstrong was an astronaut who did indeed fly in space while Dr. Eric Christian is/was not, one can quite reasonably give Mr. Armstrong's direct observations considerably greater weight than those of Dr. Christian.
It should also go without saying that Dr. Christian did not qualify his hearsay remarks as to whether the actual observer was talking about the appearance of the stars in the daytime or at night (i.e. while eclipsed by the earth or moon). This is precisely why hearsay evidence is almost always excluded at trial.
-
It's not that my eyesight is exceptional, ka9q. It is more likely that at least some of the 'stated set of facts' you mention are fiction.
-
I'm referring to Armstrong's 'observation' of seeing no stars whatsoever whilst in cislunar space, Andromeda.
You mean, when he was inside a lighted spacecraft, watching various lit-up panels?
-
It's not that my eyesight is exceptional, ka9q. It is more likely that at least some of the 'stated set of facts' you mention are fiction.
So you are accusing us and thousands of physicists and biologists and engineers of telling lies?
-
It's not that my eyesight is exceptional, ka9q. It is more likely that at least some of the 'stated set of facts' you mention are fiction.
It's actually far more likely that you are unable to understand that different people often have different subjective experiences even in similar situations and they're all telling the truth about their own experiences.
Or perhaps you do understand this but, because of some (not so) hidden agenda, are unable to admit it.
-
I'm not proposing that they are outright or willful lies. Don't twist my words. I said 'it is more likely that at least some of the stated set of facts... are fiction'. As I'm sure you're aware, in some instances, scientists have altered their points of view.
-
I'm not proposing that they are outright or willful lies. Don't twist my words. I said 'it is more likely that at least some of the stated set of facts... are fiction'. As I'm sure you're aware, in some instances, scientists have altered their points of view.
I'm not twisting your words. Saying that someone's "stated facts" are "fiction" is saying they are telling lies. Don't fight semantics with me - if you are going to make accusations, then own them.
-
What I certainly do understand, (and which is plainly evident) is that regarding responses to conflicting comments by astronauts and scientists, there is much rationalisation.
-
I'm referring to Armstrong's 'observation' of seeing no stars whatsoever whilst in cislunar space, Andromeda.
"No stars whatsoever"? See, this is why original sources are always preferred, especially against paraphrases by Apollo deniers.
If you will refer to the original source in question, namely Neil Armstrong's answer at the press conference to a question about star visibility, you will note that at no time did he say anything like "I saw no stars whatsoever whilst in cislunar space".
-
On NASA's 'Cosmicopia' - http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html , the following question is asked: 'Is it true that in space a person is not able to see stars all around them like we do on Earth?" A Dr. Eric Christian answers as follows: "No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear." (Obviously he did not hear this from Armstrong).
Depends on how dark it is, after passing into the night side of the moon Armstrong did have a great view of the stars.
Even said so in the mission transcript:
02 23 59 20 CDR
Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.
02 23 59 52 CC
I guess it has turned into night up there really, hasn't it ?
02 23 59 58 CDR
Really has.
So they stated they did see stars, and even saw stars through the telescope on board when in cis-lunar space.
-
I have carried out this 'experiment' many times incidentally, with always identical results, viz: I could see plenty of stars. Nevertheless, I tried it once more.
Your observations are missing one rather significant factor: what is the difference in the number of stars you can see in a totally dark site compared to with that streetlamp?
Streetlamps are orders of magnitude dimmer than sunlight, or anything reflecting sunlight. If there is a difference between your ability to see stars on a dark site and with a streetlamp in your field of view, this difference will be magnified greatly by having anything as bright as a sunlit object in your field of view.
A Dr. Eric Christian answers as follows: "No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear."
So you'll take what a man says 'he hears' over the testimony of every human who has ever actually travelled in space?
-
Edward, like so many Deniers, you both cherry-pick and think in absolutes. That's a poor combination.
-
It's not necessarily true that they are 'telling lies', Andromeda. A person may be of the opinion that a certain statement or view is a fact, and present it as such, yet they are not willfully telling lies.
-
As I'm sure you're aware, in some instances, scientists have altered their points of view.
Yes, they have, because of evidence. What you have here is nothing like evidence. You have an answer to a specific question which you have ripped out of its context, and a passage from a book.
Armstrong could not see stars for most of the journey to and from the moon, or while on the surface. Aldrin did when he was making navigational sightings through the optics. A couple of other astronauts did when they had the time to stop, allow their eyes to adapt, and look. There is no actual contradiction here unless you assume that all accounts of everyone who has ever gone to the Moon must be identical.
I made two night flights from Canada in the past decade. On one I had a glorious view of the stars out of my window. On the other I didn't see any at all. Is one of those accounts fictional?
-
And which 'stated facts' are fiction, then?
-
Armstrong said regarding stars in cislunar space: "I was not aware of any." Is this not the same as saying that he saw no stars whatsoever, ka9q? Why did Armstrong make the above categorical statement, Trebor, if he at various times did indeed see stars?
-
Armstrong said regarding stars in cislunar space: "I was not aware of any."
No he didn't.
-
Armstrong said regarding stars in cislunar space: "I was not aware of any."
Citation?
Is this not the same as saying that he saw no stars whatsoever, ka9q?
No. Was he answering a question about the entire journey? Any specific points on the journey? Provide the full quote. Context is everything.
-
Armstrong said regarding stars in cislunar space: "I was not aware of any."
Citation?
Is this not the same as saying that he saw no stars whatsoever, ka9q?
No. Was he answering a question about the entire journey? Any specific points on the journey? Provide the full quote. Context is everything.
Mm-hm. Like I said, cheery-picking and absolutes.
-
What I certainly do understand, (and which is plainly evident) is that regarding responses to conflicting comments by astronauts and scientists, there is much rationalisation.
The word "rationalization" (American spelling) implies explanations that are false. What, exactly, is false about our explanation for why stars are sometimes seen in space with the naked eye, and sometimes not?
Here, I'll give you some possibilities from which to choose. I can provide a list of relevant research material on request.
Does the human eye not have a very wide dynamic range, with the retina reaching full sensitivity to dim light only after minutes of slow chemical adaptation in the dark?
Do the Apollo spacecraft cabins (CSM and LM) lack bright white cabin lighting that can quickly reverse this chemical adaptation, i.e., kill night vision?
Do the Apollo spacecraft have large picture windows giving a panoramic vista of the celestial sphere that would make star sighting easy?
Were the windows on the Apollo CSM always unaffected by outgassing, escape tower solid rocket plumes and other problems that impaired visibility?
Did the Apollo astronauts land on the moon at night when stars would be easiest to see?
During their lunar EVAs, did the Apollo astronauts use highly transparent visors?
Was stargazing with the naked eye an official goal of any Apollo mission?
If "no", did the astronauts have plenty of spare time on the lunar surface that they could have used for stargazing?
This should get you started.
-
It's not necessarily true that they are 'telling lies', Andromeda. A person may be of the opinion that a certain statement or view is a fact, and present it as such, yet they are not willfully telling lies.
If you want to argue semantics, I suggest you take a look at your own choice of words. What you are describing is 'being mistaken'. What you said was 'fiction'. Fiction is made up, deliberately, as a fabrication. It is, in a very real sense, a lie. A mistake is not fiction. A mistake is not a lie. Fiction is not a mistake. Fiction is a lie.
-
Yes.
fic·tion [fik-shuhn]
noun
1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiction?s=t
-
Armstrong said regarding stars in cislunar space: "I was not aware of any." Is this not the same as saying that he saw no stars whatsoever, ka9q? Why did Armstrong make the above categorical statement, Trebor, if he at various times did indeed see stars?
Because it wasn't a categorical statement! Here's what he actually said:
Armstrong: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
Aldrin: I don't remember seeing any.
This is quite far from the categorical statement you claim it was. According to you, any statement at variance with the facts is necessarily a lie, so you were lying when you made it.
-
It's not that my eyesight is exceptional, ka9q. It is more likely that at least some of the 'stated set of facts' you mention are fiction.
No, since innumerable people share the typical experience and, in fact, cite this exercise as a demonstration of it, it's far more likely your report is fiction.
-
What I certainly do understand, (and which is plainly evident) is that regarding responses to conflicting comments by astronauts and scientists, there is much rationalisation.
No.
The position I and most of my colleagues have always taken is that whether one sees stars or not in a space environment depends greatly on circumstances of the viewing. This is also the position stated by every astronaut who has ever flown in space and been asked about this. Despite this, you insist on categorical answers. Despite the obvious straw-man tactic, you additionally misquote and misrepresent your sources and patently refuse to respond when those shady tactics are revealed.
It's not rationalizing or equivocating to correctly reject the straw man you're trying to foist. Now did you really come here and raise such a big stink to present an argument that was debunked 40 years ago?
-
No, since innumerable people share the typical experience and, in fact, cite this exercise as a demonstration of it, it's far more likely your report is fiction.
Bingo. There's one person I'm willing to call a liar on this one (remember, we need to add doctors to the people who disagree with the claim), and it sure isn't Buzz Aldrin.
Seriously, though, why can't conspiracists ever own their words? If you believe the Apollo missions were faked in any part, you believe that the people who claim from personal experience that they were true are liars. They can't be "rationalizing" a claim that, for example, they walked on the Moon (or orbited around it!). They either did or they didn't. If you believe the missions were faked, you believe they're liars. Admit it, and let's all move on.
-
Here is Apollo 11 press conference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?page&v=BI_ZehPOMwI#t=2834s).
47:14
It wasn't Armstrong who said Edwardwb1001 quotes, but Collins*, and they aren't describing stars in general, but on the daylight side of the moon or IN the solar corona, with the naked eye and not using the optics to shield their view.
Conspiracy theorists just love to quote-mine this video, but watching the whole thing makes it clear they are not talking about stars in general under all conditions.
*Someone screwed up when writing out the transcript.
-
"Go and stand near a streetlight at night. Can you see any stars?" - Zakalwe. The ol' streetlight experiment. I have a bright streetlight
less than three metres from my front gate. I have carried out this 'experiment' many times incidentally, with always identical results, viz: I could see plenty of stars. Nevertheless, I tried it once more.
Looking up directly at the lamp, with it's encircling halo effect, I could easily make out a medium to faint magnitude star just outside the aforementioned halo, yet in my field of vision. Averting my eyes just past the halo to look directly at this star, I could easily make out many other stars. The streetlight had not had a great or very discernible effect on my ability to see stars, even when staring directly at the light. I was still aware of many stars twinkling in my peripheral field of vision. If I glanced away from the lamp's halo, although with it nonetheless in my field of vision, many hundreds of stars were easily discernible. Findings reported. What was I supposed to see/not see again, Zakalwe? There seems to be not only a hole in the veracity of your 'experiment', but also one in your own world-view.
Truly, you are different to humans then. The rods in human eyes (which are the most sensitive to light) take about 25 minutes to get to full sensitivity. The cones take at least 10 minutes, but they are much less sensitive to light. I would be interested in hearing what your definition of a "medium to faint magnitude star" actually is...are you sure that you aren't mistaking Jupiter for a star (it's about the only thing bright enough in the sky at the moment to be seen under street-lights)?
The streetlight had not had a great or very discernible effect on my ability to see stars, even when staring directly at the light.
As for the streetlight not having a "great or discernible effect"? I'm sorry, but that's weapons-grade B.S. I am an amateur astronomer and astro-imager and I am VERY familiar with the process of dark adaption. The slightest exposure to a white light completely ruins the eye's dark adaption, and it takes another 30 or so minutes for the rhodopsin to leach out of the retina's cells to allow full sensitivity to be restored.
-
Zakalwe I agree with you, I just didn't want to be the first to say it.
-
If I am a several feet from a window in a room with the lights on at night, I can't see stars in the view of the sky from the window, and as anyone who has walked in from outside on a sunny day knows, household lights are much, much dimmer than the sun.
-
It's not that my eyesight is exceptional, ka9q. It is more likely that at least some of the 'stated set of facts' you mention are fiction.
No, since innumerable people share the typical experience and, in fact, cite this exercise as a demonstration of it, it's far more likely your report is fiction.
More likely a misinterpretation of what he was seeing due to a bias towards drawing certain conclusions. He was probably seeing a planet and the odd zeroth and first magnitude star. The statement that staring directly at a street light made no difference to his ability to see stars is absurd.
-
I have a bright streetlight less than three metres from my front gate. I have carried out this 'experiment' many times incidentally, with always identical results, viz: I could see plenty of stars. Nevertheless, I tried it once more.
Looking up directly at the lamp, with it's encircling halo effect, I could easily make out a medium to faint magnitude star just outside the aforementioned halo, yet in my field of vision. Averting my eyes just past the halo to look directly at this star, I could easily make out many other stars.
Not quite sure why I am engaging with this XXXXX {highly descriptive term deleted as there may be readers of a delicate temperament present}.. but those statements above are indeed absurd - and are blatant, absolute and unmitigated LIES - I would invite anyone to wander outside and check for themselves...
Just more falsehoods added to the out-of-context or just downright false 'quotes' and other deceptions - I think it's time 'Edward' was given his marching orders.
May I ask, are there any lurkers or observers out there who wish to support Edward with proper debate in good faith? Edward is clearly incapable of it and will eagerly lie to support his ravings. If he is the only person who pushes this garbage, then I think it's time to stop giving him the attention he desperately craves.
-
All and sundry are very concerned about quoting and misquoting, yet Glom blatantly misquotes me. I did not say that staring directly at a streetlight made no difference in my ability to see stars. I said that it 'had not had a great or very discernible effect'. Furthermore, Glom and Zakalwe, I am very aware of the location of Jupiter, as I have observed it many times through my reflecting telescope. At the moment it is on the opposite side of the night sky in relation to where I conducted my 'experiment'. The star I referred to was far, far dimmer than Jupiter's appearence. I suggest you desist from making assumptions.
The findings I related are exactly as experienced, but if what I say is simply going to be regarded as 'blatant, absolute and unmitigated LIES', not to mention 'falsehoods, deceptions, ravings, and attention cravings' (ChrLz), I agree with him that I be banned from the site. It seems to be the only solution to putting members of this site out of their misery.
-
Diddums.
-
You don't report a comparison between looking with or without the streetlight in your field of view, Edward, so how did you determine what effect it had?
Furthermore, I don't believe you if you say it had no effect, because that is physiologically impossible.
-
if what I say is simply going to be regarded as 'blatant, absolute and unmitigated LIES', not to mention 'falsehoods, deceptions, ravings, and attention cravings' (ChrLz), I agree with him that I be banned from the site.
Heck...I thought you should have been "booted" a long time ago...
...hope that "helps"..:D
-
Aw, but I like having a pet conspiracy theorist. :( It's like bouncing a hackysack back and forth.
-
...Don't twist my words....
While we are talking about twisting words..
I'm referring to Armstrong's 'observation' of seeing no stars whatsoever whilst in cislunar space, Andromeda.
Exactly where do you think Armstrong stated this?
-
All and sundry are very concerned about quoting and misquoting, yet Glom blatantly misquotes me. I did not say that staring directly at a streetlight made no difference in my ability to see stars. I said that it 'had not had a great or very discernible effect'. Furthermore, Glom and Zakalwe, I am very aware of the location of Jupiter, as I have observed it many times through my reflecting telescope. At the moment it is on the opposite side of the night sky in relation to where I conducted my 'experiment'. The star I referred to was far, far dimmer than Jupiter's appearence. I suggest you desist from making assumptions.
Sorry old chum, but I wasn't making assumptions. If you care to read what I said again you will find that I was asking a question. Secondly, it's a tad rich of you to demand that people "stop making assumptions" now isn't it? Especially given your position in this "debate"
And if looking directly at a streetlight (for this is what you did say) has very little impact on your ability to perceive stars, then I suggest that you get yourself to the nearest University that specializes in ophthalmology for you possess unique eyesight. I am sure that you will be of interest to them.
Looking up directly at the lamp, with it's encircling halo effect, I could easily make out a medium to faint magnitude star just outside the aforementioned halo, yet in my field of vision. Averting my eyes just past the halo to look directly at this star, I could easily make out many other stars. The streetlight had not had a great or very discernible effect on my ability to see stars, even when staring directly at the light.
What was the faint magnitude star that you speak of? What magnitude was it?
Again, I call B.S. on this one.
-
I suggest you desist from making assumptions.
Then don't claim the physiologically impossible. You are unable to account for your abilities in a scenario that every human resorts to when asked about this particular problem. You are literally asking us to believe that you alone are different from the rest of humanity, and on that basis that your stilted misinterpretation of astronauts' statements must be correct. Special pleading is a fallacy.
...I agree with him that I be banned from the site. It seems to be the only solution to putting members of this site out of their misery.
You may resign the debate at any time. Compelling others to take action to shun you is puerile passive aggression. You are the one making ludicrous claims, then stomping about in mock indignance when we naturally are not convinced by them. Instead, take intellectual responsibility for your arguments even if they turn out to be poor ones.
You were caught misrepresenting and misattributing quotes. You were caught claiming a physiological impossibility. You are simply a poor litigant. On that basis you may concede that you have failed to convince skeptical critics. But I doubt that our moderator will acquiesce to making you the martyr you desire to be.
-
All and sundry are very concerned about quoting and misquoting, yet Glom blatantly misquotes me. I did not say that staring directly at a streetlight made no difference in my ability to see stars. I said that it 'had not had a great or very discernible effect'.
While Edward is gone, this point needs a reply. There is a significant difference between a quote, as in Edward's contention of what Armstrong said, and a paraphrase, what Glom used to characterize Edward's remark. By the nature of using a quote, one is asserting that the quote is correct in word and attribution and is used as a reasonable representation of the source relative to the context of the users point. A failure to meet these criteria opens the writer to just criticism. A paraphrase is to recast the original phrase but still requires the writer to maintain a reasonable scale and scope of the original meaning. A poor paraphrase also opens the writer to just criticism.
So the question is, does Glom’s paraphrase retain this scale and scope? Does the recasting of 'had not had a great or very discernible effect' into “no difference” matter or is Edward quibbling by splitting hairs?
The majority of people who perform the experiment of observing stars while looking directly at a street light will observe a vast difference in the ability to see stars, the complete inability to see fainter or medium brightness stars, relative to a dark sky. Yet, Edward notes a minimal effect in his observation. So on a scale of differentiation, does the phrase “no difference” fall significantly closer in meaning to "not very discernible" than it does to the expected normal experience of a very large difference. The answer is yes and Glom's paraphrase is a reasonable recasting of Edward’s words. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that the paraphrase is done within the same conversation, where Edward could issue a collegial correction or amplification of his original meaning and the reader can easily compare the paraphrase with the original words.
By this reasoning, I contend that Glom's paraphrase is reasonable and Edward is quibbling in making an accusation of a double standard. The quibbling is an obvious part of his suicide by banning tactic that appears to be engineered to get him out of an argument in which he cannot prevail. I’ll leave the speculation on his motivation as an exercise to the reader.
-
I agree that the shadows don't look right. The LEM shadow looks photoshopped and way too dark. Why does the LEM have the shadow on the left in the photo and the rest of the shadows are to the right. Even look at the PSEP. It looks like it has a shadow on the opposite side as does the LEM. *&25f
-
So you make your ridiculous claim, then disappear for 3 months and reappear to simply restate your belief. You haven't read a single post in this thread. Anyone want to waste their time here?
It's amazing that in these recessionary times they still have the budget for an army of (incompetent) photoshoppers. Just as well there are eagle eyed vigilantes like you to catch them out.
-
So you make your ridiculous claim, then disappear for 3 months and reappear to simply restate your belief.
Dude, it's inconceivable. He almost never returns to a thread he's started.... ever.
-
I agree that the shadows don't look right. The LEM shadow looks photoshopped and way too dark. Why does the LEM have the shadow on the left in the photo and the rest of the shadows are to the right. Even look at the PSEP. It looks like it has a shadow on the opposite side as does the LEM. *&25f
The "rest of the shadows?" Are you talking about the craters? Do you understand what a crater is?
-
I agree that the shadows don't look right.
Subjective view noted.
The LEM shadow looks photoshopped and way too dark.
Subjective view noted.
Why does the LEM have the shadow on the left in the photo and the rest of the shadows are to the right.
What are you talking about here? The shadows look perfectly consistent with a cratered surface with a few objects sitting on it all lit from the right hand side of the image. There are a number of boulders that clearly have shadows cast to the left in that image. Everything else is a crater.
Not that I expect you to actually respond to this. Your record of seagull posting is depressingly long.
-
The LEM shadow...
Pet peeve...people who call the LM, LEM.
Is there some reason for the use of inproper terminology?, or is it just ignorance?
-
The LEM shadow...
Pet peeve...people who call the LM, LEM.
Is there some reason for the use of inproper terminology?, or is it just ignorance?
Ignorance. The hoax sites that they believe every word of use it wrong so they do too. Using it correctly would require personal effort.
-
Ignorance. The hoax sites that they believe every word of use it wrong so they do too. Using it correctly would require personal effort.
To be absolutely fair, it is a common mistake in other sources as well, though, yes, I can see why it rankles.
-
Pet peeve...people who call the LM, LEM.
I've noticed that. Another word in the same category is "evidences" rather than just "evidence", which is both singular and plural. I hear it all the time from creationists and other pseudoscientific cranks, but very very rarely from mainstream scientists or laymen who know what they're talking about. It often tips me off that some guy "just asking questions", isn't.
I take this as evidence that the cranks have largely isolated themselves from the mainstream and only talk with each other. And just as any isolated population begins to evolve away, their language is evolving away from mainstream scientific English.
-
Pet peeve...people who call the LM, LEM.
I've noticed that. Another word in the same category is "evidences" rather than just "evidence",
Is it list time again?
"Earth changes" from the Planet X/Nibiru/Mayan Doomsday crowd.
"Mauser" from the JFK crowd.
"Barium" from the Chemtrail crowd.
-
I saw a barium release once, while I was living in New Jersey. A sounding rocket launched from Wallops Island released it (and probably some other chemicals) in space shortly before dawn. I went out hoping to glimpse a bit of it on the southern horizon when I happened to look up to see a huge colorful cloud in the sky, much higher than I had expected. Very impressive, but I doubt very many others were up and watching then. Had it been at sunset, I'm sure 911 lines would have lit up everywhere.
Barium and other releases from sounding rockets were common in the 1970s and 80s but I haven't heard of many since I moved to California. Do they still happen, or are there other ways to gain the scientific information they want?
-
It's original official designation was the LEM, but it was changed in about mid 1966 by NASA managers concerned that the term 'Excursion' might seem a little frivolous.. I just looked at a NASA document from March 1966, and it is titled "LEM Guidance, Navigation and Control Subsystem Course No. 30315"... but then one from April 1966 refers to the LM..
I don't see it as a big problem.
-
I seem to recall that the Lunar Module is referred to as the LEM several times in the course of the movie Apollo 13. That may explain why a great many people call it that ... it is probably the most famous pop culture reference to the Apollo programme for non-enthusiasts, after all.
-
I seem to recall that the Lunar Module is referred to as the LEM several times in the course of the movie Apollo 13. That may explain why a great many people call it that ... it is probably the most famous pop culture reference to the Apollo programme for non-enthusiasts, after all.
It's pronounced lem but spelt LM. They did however refer to it at least once as the Lunar Excursion Module. It was on the telecast just prior to the explosion.
The ironic thing about the depiction of that telecast was that it was supposed to show how everyone on Earth found spaceflight boring, but it was in fact significantly amped up compared to the real telecast. Jim Lovell can certainly talk in monotone when he wants to.
-
It's original official designation was the LEM, but it was changed in about mid 1966 by NASA managers concerned that the term 'Excursion' might seem a little frivolous.. I just looked at a NASA document from March 1966, and it is titled "LEM Guidance, Navigation and Control Subsystem Course No. 30315"... but then one from April 1966 refers to the LM..
I don't see it as a big problem.
Not so much a "problem"...it's just rather lame for someone who is trying to convince that Apollo didn't happen....that they know what they are talking about, when they obviously don't.
-
Correct, that is what I was wondering. Why is the shadow of the craters the same as the shadow for the PSEP? Did they put the PSEP in a crater? I am troubled that the shadow of the PSEP is not on the same side as the LEM/LM.
-
Before I answer this, do you still think the lighting direction on the craters is different from the lighting direction on the LM? You haven't answered that yet.
-
I can't be sure you're looking at the same thing I am, but I would recommend studying a diagram or close-up picture of the Apollo 11 seismic experiment. Unlike the later ALSEP experiments that were nuclear powered, the Apollo 11 PSEP was powered by a pair of solar panels deployed on the east and west sides of the instrument. The east panel was tilted to the east to pick up the sun in the morning and the west panel was tilted westward to pick up the afternoon sun. Both would (to a lesser extent) pick up the sun at midday.
The brightness of artificial objects on the lunar surface varies radically with sun angle, as many (like solar panels) are specular reflectors (i.e., they have smooth, shiny surfaces that reflect much like mirrors even if they're not silvered). If the sun catches a panel at a certain angle, it may appear very bright while the other appears dark because it is both intrinsically dark and reflecting only dark lunar sky.
Note that while the LROC uses a 1-dimensional "pushbroom" imager, it is not necessarily looking straight down but may be rolled to the left or right to view a particular surface target. Since the LROC is in a polar orbit, the views it gives us of each Apollo site may be from the east or west. This can affect both its perspective of 3-D objects on the surface and the sun angles that give a specular reflection.
What you think is a "shadow" is probably just one of the two solar panels.
-
Correct, that is what I was wondering. Why is the shadow of the craters the same as the shadow for the PSEP? Did they put the PSEP in a crater? I am troubled that the shadow of the PSEP is not on the same side as the LEM/LM.
The PSEP 'shadow' looks much more like the 'shadow' of the LM. I suspect this is not so much a shadow as an imaging artifact caused by the bright specular reflections of the mylar/kapton on the LM and the solar panels of the PSEP. The shadow around the LM and the PSEP looks much darker than any other shadow, which is why I think its an artifact of imaging a very bright region, producing a darker halo around it.
-
I found this diagram with measurements of the Apollo 11 PSEP:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11PSEP_NASM.jpg
Each panel is 13" high and the distances between their top and bottom edges differs by 9". Assuming the two panels are tilted the same way, we can solve for their angle as follows:
acos(9/2 / 13) = 69.7 deg ~= 70 deg. I.e., the panels are tilted only 20 degrees from being perpendicular to the surface. Check out the sun angle on that LRO image as well as its view angle of the Apollo 11 site, and you'll probably find that the specular reflection works out just right for the one panel that shows brightly.
-
I take this as evidence that the cranks have largely isolated themselves from the mainstream and only talk with each other. And just as any isolated population begins to evolve away, their language is evolving away from mainstream scientific English.
I don't know how I originally missed this post....anyhow, the only people who refer to the LM as the LEM, have, in my experience, been hoax believers.
-
I don't know how I originally missed this post....anyhow, the only people who refer to the LM as the LEM, have, in my experience, been hoax believers.
Interesting, isn't it?
-
I was always informed the engineers referred to it as the LEM and enthusiasts shortened it to LM. Will the MEM (Mars Excursion Module) be referred to as the mm in the future? contact..... engine stop...copy down... Mojave....Cydonia Base.... the mm has landed.
-
I was always informed the engineers referred to it as the LEM and enthusiasts shortened it to LM.
All I can say is that you were mis-informed. NASA felt that "excursion" sounded too "frivolous", therefore, the term was shortened to LM.
End of story...
-
As far as I know, it was still pronounced "lem" though. It's possible that this is the root of inconceivable's garbled version.
BTW, what's the sock status of inconceivable? It's getting hard to keep track...
-
As far as I know, it was still pronounced "lem" though.
Yes...of course.
It's possible that this is the root of inconceivable's garbled version.
Certainly a possibility, however now that he has been informed as to the "why" of the matter, there is no reason for him to repeat that mistake.
-
I was always informed the engineers referred to it as the LEM and enthusiasts shortened it to LM.
Who informed you of this?
-
I was always informed the engineers referred to it as the LEM and enthusiasts shortened it to LM.
You were misinformed.
However hoax-believers seem unable to refer to it by anything other than "LEM". You probably need to change your sources of information.
-
I was always informed the engineers referred to it as the LEM and enthusiasts shortened it to LM.
You were misinformed.
However hoax-believers seem unable to refer to it by anything other than "LEM". You probably need to change your sources of information.
It is so common we added it to Apollo Hoax Bingo card. (http://apollohoax.net/bingo/)
-
It is so common we added it to Apollo Hoax Bingo card. (http://apollohoax.net/bingo/)
LOL...I'd forgotten all about the bingo card!
-
You were misinformed.
However hoax-believers seem unable to refer to it by anything other than "LEM". You probably need to change your sources of information.
Agreed that the official designation changed, this was not an informal change by "enthusiasts." To be fair though, the term "LEM" has persisted long after the official name change. I just noticed this week while reading "Lost Moon" by Lovell and Kluger to my son that the authors appear to use the terms interchangeably even when referring to the Aquarius and events in 1970.
Compared with pejorative misspellings of "astronaut," the LEM/LM mistake seems pretty excusable to me.