Author Topic: Good books about the moon landings hoax?  (Read 341712 times)

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #90 on: August 27, 2014, 04:01:47 AM »
I still like Jarrah's description of a polar orbit.

Oh, you've gone and done it now, and I was trying so hard not to go over old ground. The infamous '1.5 x 0.5 = 1.0 wiggle myself of the hook with circular logic get-out' is still my favourite.

'If I take the Apollo footage (Young's jump salute) and increase it speed to 150% (3/2 times) it looks like a man moving in Earth's gravity. I shall now render the sped up video. I now take my rendered video at 150% (3/2 times) and reduce it's playback speed to 67% (2/3 times speed) and it looks like the Apollo footage.' He plays slowed down rendered video next to unaltered video.

So you've just shown that 3/2 x 2/3 = 1? Way to go  :o


Hang on; you mean he sped up the footage of a piece of lunar gravity video and claimed that it looked like Earth gravity video, then slowed down the SAME FOOTAGE and claimed that because it then looked like the original lunar gravity video, that this proved the lunar gravity video was Earth gravity video slowed down?

Oh boy, there is stupid, and there is stupid, but that takes stupid to a whole new level.
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #91 on: August 27, 2014, 04:32:07 AM »
In my ranking of Wrong, somewhere past Fractally Wrong and even Not Even Wrong, and far beyond Trivially Wrong, is So Wrong it Became Right -- in some Looking-Glass, Bizarro world where the wrong thing is so wrong it starts to make some sort of twisted sense.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #92 on: August 27, 2014, 05:03:51 AM »
Hang on; you mean he sped up the footage of a piece of lunar gravity video and claimed that it looked like Earth gravity video, then slowed down the SAME FOOTAGE and claimed that because it then looked like the original lunar gravity video, that this proved the lunar gravity video was Earth gravity video slowed down?

Yup. Then there's the infamous scattered rocks claim which implies that Earth's gravity is 216 times greater than the Moon's gravity (once your dissect the physics). That's a little more labourius to explain, but he worked out the size of rocks that are held up on the Moon and Earth by rocket exhaust gases. He then equated the weight of rocks to the upward fluid force, a problem that used the principles of Newton's 1st law. He then showed that the same gas pressure would support larger rocks on the Moon.

He then used this result and invoked Newtons 2nd law with no math, boldly making the claim that this meant bigger rocks with larger surface areas could be scattered further on the Moon for the same exhaust pressure, ergo there should of been a blast crater under the LM.

Assuming his model is correct, which it is not, he did not compare the same sized rocks in his second step. He jumped to a different part of physics without understanding the principles and context of his first set of calculations and fluffed it. It was also pointed out that if he wanted to use his model consistently he would have to use a higher gas pressure for an hypothetical Earth module, and this would yield a different result if he compared apples with apples and applied the correct physics to his model.

Then there was his failure to understand Galileo's experiment, you know, the one where two objects dropped from the same height in the absence of air resistance both hit the ground simultaneously. Except that he declared that this was not always the case. He went on to compare two objects hitting the ground from the same height. Except one had already been falling before the the second one was dropped. Let's go through that one with s = ut + 1/2 at2 shall we? Not much chance there.

The boot in the regolith simulant, the LEGO LM in a box, jumping around next to a flag, kicking dry and wet sand on a beach, the radiation calculations, the shrinking of Aldrin's boot print photo and superimposing it on the LRO images, his claims regarding the LLRs, the milk in the super market trolley. It's a collection of pseudo-bunk of burning stupid, all packaged up in whizzy graphics and skits which impress the gullible, it really is.

As I said on the AWE thread, I have the knowledge to debunk radiation, rocks, the LLR claims, some of the photographic evidence and the usual fodder offered up by the hoax crowd. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, most of the claims are debunked with a bit of high school science and some research. There are some aspects of hoax claims that require deep specialist knowledge, but most can be dealt with if you're willing to put in the leg work.

There are parts where I simply do not have the knowledge, but I will quite happily say I'm ignorant, but I won't replace ignorance with arrogance. Fattydash's claim of the Eagle lost on the surface, that took the likes of Jay, sts60, ka9q, Bob etc, I simply did not know where to start debunking that claim. However, once I read the rebuttal, the rendezvous of the CM and LM made perfect sense.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 05:34:04 AM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #93 on: August 27, 2014, 05:36:27 AM »
I still like Jarrah's description of a polar orbit.

Didn't he wiggle away from that one too with some absurd claim that...

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #94 on: August 27, 2014, 05:39:53 AM »
There are parts where I simply do not have the knowledge, but I will quite happily say I'm ignorant, but I won't replace ignorance with arrogance. Fattydash's claim of the Eagle lost on the surface, that took the likes of Jay, sts60, ka9q, Bob etc, I simply did not know where to start debunking that claim. However, once I read the rebuttal, the rendezvous of the CM and LM made perfect sense.

There is a tremendous arrogance in hoax believers of this type. It's an arrogance borne out of a lack of education, understanding and wonder. Its an arrogance borne out of the effects of the Dunning-Kruger effect- the illusion of superiority. As David Dunning said "If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. .....the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is"

I think (and it's only my opinion) that most HBs differ slightly from this as they do know that their knowledge is limited. They know that others have done more, are smarter, have applied themselves harder, and because of this have grasped the hoax belief as a way of convincing themselves that they are, in some way, better. They display lots of the signs of having a superiority complex. That is why people like Awe130 and The Blunder from Down Under will never be convinced otherwise, no matter how many times they are shown to be talking bollocks. To admit so would be to face their own insecurity and lack of knowledge. Remember DakDak? He was a dumb as rocks and had a pride in failing at all levels of education. He nearly imploded when it was shown just how limited his understanding of the world was. But rather than face up to that and try and learn something he collapsed completely and buried his head in the sand.

IMHO, people that truly know stuff tend to be a lot more humble in their estimations of their abilities and our reservoir of knowledge. Because they know stuff they also know just how limited our understanding actually is.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #95 on: August 27, 2014, 05:53:19 AM »
Oh boy, there is stupid, and there is stupid, but that takes stupid to a whole new level.

But wait kindly Sir, after pushing Percy's tired claim that the film was slowed down to half speed, he failed to understand that it was just not his math that had failed miserably, but the theory itself. Once the laughter had ceased and this significant point was explained, he turned on his haunches and with all the skill of a master groundsman moved the goalposts. He returned lily livered, and refusing to repudiate that the theory was as dead as a parrot after firing several 7.62 rounds into his metatarsals, he triumphantly declared:

'But the theory has always claimed that wires were used too, all I have done is shown that the film was slowed down to 67% speed and wires were used. The King is dead, long live the King.'

Go figure. I invoke the Underpants Gnomes once more.

1. Theory was wrong all along.
2. ?
3. New theory.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #96 on: August 27, 2014, 06:17:45 AM »
IMHO, people that truly know stuff tend to be a lot more humble in their estimations of their abilities and our reservoir of knowledge. Because they know stuff they also know just how limited our understanding actually is.

Exactly true of my experience. When I first looked into the hoax with any sort of zeal I focused on the rocks and radiation as I knew that was the area where I was probably going to fair better. I felt that my experience gave me the skills and knowledge to become very well informed. I took about the task in my spare time and once I began researching I became deeply entrenched. This stems from my background (research scientist), I find one paper, and then I dig out the references and read those papers. I'll then read the references of the references until I have put all the strands together and feel that I have an informed view. I'll then try and understand the gaps in the record so I know the limits with the body of knowledge.

Believe me, there are numerous gaps in our understanding of solar and flare physics, yet I see the likes of the Blunder talk about the subject as though there are none. I have enough understanding that I know when he's making things up, I can identify topics that he scampers through with all the gusto of a city trader (hand waving) yet practitioners of those areas have still not resolved the science.

I'm now reading more about the rocketry involved and developing my orbital mechanics. I've been reading some interesting articles on the staging of the Saturn V, I was reading about pogo only yesterday, and am starting to scan Bob's site in preparation to have my head fried. None of this will ever make me an expert, it will make me a keen enthusiast. Jay explained it on the AWE130 thread, to him Apollo is not some fanciful idea in print, it's something very real, and the theorists don't understand this point. They think they know everything there is to know and more.

I'd rather be humble thanks.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Mag40

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #97 on: August 27, 2014, 06:39:25 AM »
I still like Jarrah's description of a polar orbit.

Didn't he wiggle away from that one too with some absurd claim that...

IIRC, this is what went down:

Firstly, he said the Apollo command and service module was placed in 'orbit' around the polar area kind of like a latitude line. This demonstrated an alarming lack of knowledge in orbital mechanics or what such a route entailed. The fuel use alone to maintain such a path would be enormous.

Secondly, the reasoning behind such a claim was by means of showing how NASA could have hidden the Apollo crafts from prying eyes. I suppose he thinks Arctic astronomers don't exist or wouldn't count.

Next, when everybody began laughing at his claims, he said it was a ruse by him to show how the ground track actually taken by Apollo was not possible. This is possibly the worst of the blunders. A genuine orbit taken 30 degrees inclined to the equatorial line was misinterpreted by him to mean (guessing his 'logic' here) on a path a few degrees above the tropic of Cancer or Capricorn.

This to him meant Apollo crafts would be unable to bypass the outer areas of the Van Halen Belts™, or something or other.
There are brainfarts and then there is stupid.

Offline sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 401
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #98 on: August 27, 2014, 09:21:11 AM »
Secondly, the reasoning behind such a claim was by means of showing how NASA could have hidden the Apollo crafts from prying eyes. I suppose he thinks Arctic astronomers don't exist or wouldn't count.
It's worse than that.  Literally anybody in the Northern Hemisphere, and depending on the "latitude" of the orbit, parts of the Southern, could have seen them.  "Hey!  What's that bright thing buzzing around Polaris?!"

Offline RAF

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #99 on: August 27, 2014, 09:30:34 AM »
In my ranking of Wrong, somewhere past Fractally Wrong and even Not Even Wrong, and far beyond Trivially Wrong, is So Wrong it Became Right -- in some Looking-Glass, Bizarro world where the wrong thing is so wrong it starts to make some sort of twisted sense.

I am reminded of an old Asimov science essay...The Relativity of Wrong.

Hard to believe he's been gone for over 20 years...I miss his wisdom.

Offline RAF

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #100 on: August 27, 2014, 09:39:47 AM »
IIRC, this is what went down:

Firstly, he said the Apollo command and service module was placed in 'orbit' around the polar area kind of like a latitude line. This demonstrated an alarming lack of knowledge in orbital mechanics or what such a route entailed. The fuel use alone to maintain such a path would be enormous.

Is this type of orbit even possible?...or is it just a question of power. Wouldn't such a craft have to be under constant thrust to maintain such an orbit?

Safe to say that JW doesn't understand why we launch spacecraft in an eastward direction.



« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 09:42:03 AM by RAF »

Offline Allan F

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1007
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #101 on: August 27, 2014, 09:55:00 AM »
IIRC, this is what went down:

Firstly, he said the Apollo command and service module was placed in 'orbit' around the polar area kind of like a latitude line. This demonstrated an alarming lack of knowledge in orbital mechanics or what such a route entailed. The fuel use alone to maintain such a path would be enormous.

Is this type of orbit even possible?...or is it just a question of power. Wouldn't such a craft have to be under constant thrust to maintain such an orbit?

Safe to say that JW doesn't understand why we launch spacecraft in an eastward direction.

Constant power needed, yes - directed at a right angle to the desired orbit. As soon as the engine is turned off, it'll resume a normal orbit, swinging north and south across the equator.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 09:57:02 AM by Allan F »
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #102 on: August 27, 2014, 11:03:05 AM »
Is this type of orbit even possible?...or is it just a question of power. Wouldn't such a craft have to be under constant thrust to maintain such an orbit?

A spacecraft orbits around the center of mass of the primary (the body that it is orbiting).  To orbit in a manner described by Jarrah would require constant thrust, so much so that it is prohibitive.  In every practical sense such an orbit is impossible.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #103 on: August 27, 2014, 11:20:28 AM »
Or in other words, every unaccelerated orbit exists in a plane, and that plane must include the center-of-gravity point of the primary object it orbits.  All orbits around Earth must be in a plane that passes through Earth's center.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Good books about the moon landings hoax?
« Reply #104 on: August 27, 2014, 11:22:44 AM »
'If I take the Apollo footage (Young's jump salute) and increase its speed to 150% (3/2 times) it looks like a man moving in Earth's gravity.

That claim by itself boggles my mind.  If people think it looks like movement in Earth gravity, then they should set up a camera and film themselves replicating those exact movements.  Just try to hop 3 or 4 feet with as little 'push off' as we see from the astronauts.  If people would just open their eyes, get off their butts and perform a simple experiment, they'd learn something.