ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: advancedboy on June 16, 2012, 03:11:41 AM

Title: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 16, 2012, 03:11:41 AM
Hello, my name is Advancedboy. I would like to participate in the forum by having a neutral discussion , as far as it is possible to be neutral. I would like to start with offering some often discussed Apollo hoax arguments that either are strong or weak in supporting any of the sides.  Let`s start with the weak arguments. By weak arguments I mean legitimate proof from the indicted party that stands incoclusive by any side.
 Not in particular order.  C-rock. It is a very weak argument to prove hoax, as the letter  `c` doesn`t have  any tangible caligraphy, or distinct man-made features to stand as conclusive. It can`t be a hair on negative , as that would have opposite colour, but it is irrelevant, as the c-rock  is too obscure as an evidence, and could be a part of the original rock.  Could it be a letter c inscribed  to denote the center. it could, but in this case it is irrelevant.
Hammer /feather experiment. Unfortunately the video is of such a poor quality, that it makes the possibility to haox it  quiet easily, that is why I discarded it as  a weak argument. It wouldn`t require neither sources nor special skills to fake this shot by having a lead or  read this ( osmium filled) falcon feather and a plastic hammer with a balance weight at one end to make it fall` convincingly`.
Background lighting. It is a weak argument as light could change its intensity depending on angle it falls. if the surface is uneven it makes the angle variable thus indicating various light saturation. As I presume that NASA had been tinkering with contrast of the pics, it is inconclusive if the  light patch, where astronauts seem to stand in floodlights, is from background surface ondulation or additional lighting. Here is a pic of a helicopter I designed and built, as I am striving to become an industrial designer. As you can see the light slightly changes from place to place, and if started messing around with contrast or exposure curves of RGB, you would get patchy surface. Astronauts illuminated in darkness is a completely different topic.
Another issue is parallel shadows. It is a fallacy to consider that shadows should be parallel. They are subject to perspective as any other object depicted. And they can seem almost parallel only if they are very close together. If you shoot a pic from a lower angle , being closer to ground, the more visible tha perspective will be, the same will ahppen with  different lenses that will create barrel, pincushion or fisheye effect. here in the pic with chopper you can put a ruler and see that shadows are not parallel either, yet it oesn`t mean that all Apollo shadows stand scrutny and are conclusive. There are more to come, maybe you could add som more of your own points that stand as weak argument? Thank you!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 16, 2012, 04:36:19 AM
I'd prefer to stay away from weak arguments.  Weak arguments tend to be used as scoring points by the Apollo Deniers, aka; "You are unfair by bringing up these straw man arguments no-body uses any more!"  Even if the person who brought them up was that same poster, two days ago.

Except I don't find any strong arguments.  My personal sorting algorithm is roughly three categories;

1) Easy to show why it is wrong.
2) Complicated, and thus showing it wrong is a lengthy task.
3) Inconclusive by nature (such as arguments about motives, or that involve advanced aliens.)

In re the hammer...as per Newton, unless your feather is light enough to be buoyant, both are going to experience the same acceleration from gravity.  Making one out of osmium and the other out of plastic isn't necessary.  The problem is one of air resistance; the feather, regardless of material, is going to react to atmosphere in more complex ways than the hammer is.  In any case, it isn't a demonstration of lunar gravity -- it is "merely" a demonstration of vacuum.

By the by, I posted a picture in the last iteration of this board of a rock that WAS clearly marked with a "C."  I found it at my gym.  It was made of plastic and bolted to a wall.  In no place where I have worked professionally; stage, opera, or independent film, have I seen a piece of scenery marked like that.  It is just so far outside any standard practice to believe the hoax would do this produces far more questions than it answers.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 16, 2012, 04:58:09 AM
Hello, my name is Advancedboy.

Welcome to the forum.

Quote
C-rock. It is a very weak argument to prove hoax, as the letter  `c` doesn`t have  any tangible caligraphy, or distinct man-made features to stand as conclusive. It can`t be a hair on negative , as that would have opposite colour, but it is irrelevant, as the c-rock  is too obscure as an evidence, and could be a part of the original rock.  Could it be a letter c inscribed  to denote the center. it could, but in this case it is irrelevant.

It is not claimed to be a hair on the negative. The Apollo film stock did not produce negatives. The developed film provided a positive image which was then duplicated. The 'C' has been shown to be more than likely a hair on the plate of the copier, just as other images show signs of dust and scratches from the copying process. There are published versions of that picture which do not include the C at all. Moreover, the bit that no hoax argument will ever tell you, there are two photographs of that rock, and one of them has never appeared with a C present on it at all.

And the notion that marking a set or prop in such a conspicuous way is standard practice in Hollywood is simply absurd.

Quote
Hammer /feather experiment. Unfortunately the video is of such a poor quality, that it makes the possibility to haox it  quiet easily, that is why I discarded it as  a weak argument. It wouldn`t require neither sources nor special skills to fake this shot by having a lead or  read this ( osmium filled) falcon feather and a plastic hammer with a balance weight at one end to make it fall` convincingly`.

All of which are postulated with no evidence whatsoever. The issue is not that they fall together and convincingly, it's that they fall slowly, and the rest of the footage includes elements that clearly indicate this is being done in lower gravity. People occasionally propose slowed down video, but this is inconsistent with the rest of that pice of footage.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ChrLz on June 16, 2012, 05:20:45 AM
Let`s start with the weak arguments.
?????

No.  Let's not.  And your very first one gives a good indication of why....

Quote
It can`t be a hair on negative , as that would have opposite colour
As already pointed out, that was positive, not negative film.  It was taken on a variant of Ektachrome 160, a very well known slide, not negative, film.  Slides (aka transparencies, positives) aren't negatives - and they do NOT get reversed for printing.  So it would NOT have the opposite colour.

So that 'weak' argument was not so much weak, it was completely wrong even at the most basic level.

WE *know* that there are some very silly arguments, and some very silly people out there (thankfully a dwindling number) who simply haven't got a clue on these topics.

So why would we want a long list of such inanities?

If you have something you wish to debate, fine, but start with your best and most well-researched.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 16, 2012, 06:16:44 AM
Moreover, the bit that no hoax argument will ever tell you, there are two photographs of that rock, and one of them has never appeared with a C present on it at all.

Indeed.  I believe the C-rock photo is AS16-107-17446 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS16-107-17446).  But AS-16-107-17445 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS16-107-17445) was taken just before it and also shows the same rock.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 16, 2012, 07:44:27 AM
The problem with "weak arguments" such as "if the hammer was made out of this and if the feather was made out of that," is that they are no arguments at all.  One could use such speculation to argue for any position on any question.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 16, 2012, 07:51:09 AM
By revealing th arguments that are weak, we can move on to more questionable issues. I consider any argument weak that  is easy and cheap to fraud. For example, famous `worldwide sounds ` can be dismissed as such videos are extremely easy to be faked. While a 47 floor high building collapsing with implosion  from office fires having a freefall pattern is a different category of discussion. I don`t care if there was a negative or not of the c-rock picture, or if there was another picture that didn`t have a letter c. It would be easy to erase it anyway. So it doesn`t matter. C-case dismissed.  And the Falcon punch, sorry, i mean falcon feather case is irrelevant as well , because of course NASA wouldn`t have had a technology to slow down the video, nudge, nudge and then speed it back up. At first I wanted to point out weak arguments and only then proceed to heavier stuff.
   Another weak argument case- Hasselblaad crosses. As they used these cameras anyway, why would they need to attach any crosses, even being so sloppy as to draw them behind astronauts or scenery. This is a case of overexposure, most likely. What would be more interesting is to play with extreme RGB settings yet be unable to find these crosses in the lunar air/background darkness. How much fun would be that?
What else would you consider a weak argument case?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ChrLz on June 16, 2012, 10:08:33 AM
...we can move on...
So you're just going to throw more out there, without even acknowledging that the very first one you threw was completely wrong?

And you happily admit that you "don't care about the details"?

Bye Bye.  Count me out of this 'thread'.

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 16, 2012, 10:16:39 AM
By revealing th arguments that are weak, we can move on to more questionable issues.

This subject has been discussed and ebated over decades. A number of us have been doing so for a long time. We are familiar with the weak arguments. We don't need to use them as a preamble. If you have anything you consider a 'strong' argument then just get on with presenting it please.


Quote
I don`t care if there was a negative or not of the c-rock picture

You shold, because you used it as a counter-example to the argument. If you don't care about how you can be wrong on details or indeed any other part, what exactly do you hope to gain from a discussion?

This does matter, because if you are willing to be dismissive of corrections how are we expected to believe you will discuss any heavier subject properly?

Quote
because of course NASA wouldn`t have had a technology to slow down the video, nudge, nudge and then speed it back up.

Not without leaving obvious artifacts on the image, no. The way that colour TV footage was collected and processed means we can be very sure that such techniques have not been used.

Quote
What would be more interesting is to play with extreme RGB settings yet be unable to find these crosses in the lunar air/background darkness. How much fun would be that?

You can have as much fun with that as you like, but why do you think there would be any sensible conclusion to be drawn from failing to find a dark line on a dark background? And what would you use as your source image?

Playing with photoshop settings does not a convincing analysis make.

Quote
What else would you consider a weak argument case?

Frankly, every argument I have ever heard for Apollo being faked is weak. They all fail for lack of support or appeal to anonymous authorities, or common sense, or some other such basic error. Not one of them stands up to the slightest scrutiny. if you have any that you believe do please present them and stop wasting time with the 'weak' stuff.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 16, 2012, 10:21:29 AM
What else would you consider a weak argument case?

What do you define as a weak argument in the first place? 'Debunking' the Apollo hoax shows that all the arguments are weak. Those that propose them have no expertise in the fields that they comment on in the first place, and pulling away their layers does not take much work for those that understand their field.

For instance, Ralph Rene's radiation argument is very weak, one only has to read his pamphlet, 'NASA mooned America' to see his hand waving and ridiculous argument. Yet in hoax circles, the radiation argument is viewed as the trump card - a strong argument. It's just those that the peddle the argument have a lack of understanding to actually pick through the data and science, and realise what they propose is flawed.

I refuse to accept that there are weak and strong arguments to support the hoax, as it means I acknowledge there is some merit in the theory, when it has been systematically debunked. The hangers on to Bill Kaysing's bloated and stinking hoax carcass are just desperate wannabees that put their ego before their ability to reason and listen. As far as I am concerned, there are some individuals in the hoax community that have nothing but vitriol and venom, and really are a waste of good genetic material. Harsh I know, but I really don't care much for them or their friends. They have little to offer humanity.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 16, 2012, 10:48:34 AM
I agree with Jason and Luke.  The arguments I consider weak are those that claim Apollo was fake, because they are without exception based upon faulty reasoning, bad science and lies.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: VincentMcConnell on June 16, 2012, 12:16:06 PM
There's nothing really here to debunk. You just rated the most over-used, nonsensical and common hoax claims by the order of "weak" or "strong". To tell the truth, I don't even really understand the point of this thread...
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: gillianren on June 16, 2012, 02:15:00 PM
I think what we have here is another person operating on the assumption that we're all new to hoax conspiracism and that it will take but a single point to make us all change our minds.  It will inevitably turn out that there is not a single point which can be raised and not have half the people here go, "Not that old chestnut!"
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 16, 2012, 02:48:31 PM
It will inevitably turn out that there is not a single point which can be raised and not have half the people here go, "Not that old chestnut!"

Keeping the nut theme, but that sums up my feelings in a nutshell. In my view, the hoax theorists play radiation as their trump card. Anyone that has a knowledge of the space environment and the physics of ionising radiation can peel away its layers very easily.  If their 'strongest' argument is so weak, then it shows just how little they can critically think. They enjoy promoting themselves as critical thinkers. Sadly, they have limited critical thinking skills, as that involves looking at the other evidence in an unbiased manner. They simply refuse to listen and explore the problem from first principles, so their theory falls down until they are ready to do that. It's not about the merit of the various arguments, it is how they are prepared to construct their arguments.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 16, 2012, 02:58:23 PM
By revealing th arguments that are weak, we can move on to more questionable issues. I consider any argument weak that  is easy and cheap to fraud.

Gah! No.  This is the second incarnation of this board, meaning there are two decades on the Internet alone of discussion about the early, stupid, obvious hoax claims.  I don't want to hear about "No stars" any more.  I didn't come for that, there is nothing interesting to learn in discussing it.

And this is starting to look a whole lot like one of those weird ungainly meta-arguments certain people get into when they want to come into an established board and put down everyone there with their superior wit.  Frack it.  I'm not playing, and I suggest no-one else play, either.

For example, famous `worldwide sounds ` can be dismissed as such videos are extremely easy to be faked. While a 47 floor high building collapsing with implosion  from office fires having a freefall pattern is a different category of discussion.

Let's not go there, either.  As an example, fine, but...

I don`t care if there was a negative or not of the c-rock picture, or if there was another picture that didn`t have a letter c. It would be easy to erase it anyway. So it doesn`t matter. C-case dismissed.

Then why bring it up?  Again, this seems like some sort of labored meta-game.

And this is a poor way to dismiss the argument, also -- one that does not bode well for your process.  Yes, it could have been there originally, and erased or corrected.  Given enough people, given enough access, given a big enough conspiracy, you can defend anything.  Maybe NASA re-rendered the scene on their secret supercomputers running advanced 3d software.  Maybe they jumped into their secret antigravity flying saucers with some period cameras and re-shot the picture on site!

No; this is a stupid and futile way to proceed.  If you are going to bring up a question, then make an effort to see if it can be answered WITHOUT dragging in stardust-powered invisible pink unicorns.


  And the Falcon punch, sorry, i mean falcon feather case is irrelevant as well , because of course NASA wouldn`t have had a technology to slow down the video, nudge, nudge and then speed it back up. At first I wanted to point out weak arguments and only then proceed to heavier stuff.

And this is the point in your post where I really, really started to get suspicious.  Make the argument or don't make it.  What you are doing here is pretending not to think it is a good argument so you can drag the suspicion back out later.

If you were honest, you'd look at the actual argument.  And then you would discover (as some people on this forum have the technical expertise to explain IN DETAIL) why "slowing the video" is a non-trivial task.

By pretending you don't care to discuss it, you are shutting out the easy refutability, and leaving it as an open question.  It is exactly like a lawyer getting something he shouldn't have in front of the Jury, then sitting back and smirking as the judge instructs them to forget what they just heard.


   Another weak argument case- Hasselblaad crosses. As they used these cameras anyway, why would they need to attach any crosses, even being so sloppy as to draw them behind astronauts or scenery. This is a case of overexposure, most likely. What would be more interesting is to play with extreme RGB settings yet be unable to find these crosses in the lunar air/background darkness. How much fun would be that?
What else would you consider a weak argument case?

What would that prove?  Emulsions are not infinite.  Like homeopathy, eventually you reach a point where not a single (exposed) molecule remains.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 16, 2012, 03:24:59 PM
 Before going into moonhoax I would like to ask all of you the following question. This is an off-topic question, but by answering it, it will  help me to understand if you truly represent science and reasoning, or you represent sides. One must understand, the testimony of people whose paychecks are dependent on their picked sides, is irrelevant. It would be irrelevant to ask a NASA employee if he believes in moonlandings. Anyway, the question is the following- ` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Please, your answer is very crucial for me ! It is not for discussion, just shoot a straight answer. Thank you!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 16, 2012, 04:18:39 PM
This is an off-topic question, but by answering it, it will  help me to understand if you truly represent science and reasoning, or you represent sides.

Do you think this is new to us? The answer to your question as to what we represent will be answered by discussing Apollo. That is, after all, what this board is for.

Quote
9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?

Irrelevant.

The truth or otherwise of Apollo rests on the evidence. 9/11 has NOTHING to do with it. Discuss Apollo if you will. Discuss 9/11 on a separate thread. There is NO connection between the two, and I for one will not play this game with you. I will discuss Apollo happily and at length. I will not waste time on irrelevancies designed to 'flush out' the people you think you want to dismiss from your discussion.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 16, 2012, 05:05:30 PM
Advancedboy, please either make your arguments or leave.  This is not the place to "test" us before deciding whether or not you will come to the point - doing so will only make people frustrated and make you look like someone who wishes to stir up drama for the sake of it.

Your point, please.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 16, 2012, 05:18:23 PM
By revealing th arguments that are weak, we can move on to more questionable issues.
Why would a strong argument be more questionable than a weak one?
Quote
falcon feather case is irrelevant as well , because of course NASA wouldn`t have had a technology to slow down the video, nudge, nudge and then speed it back up.

If it is irrelevant, then why did you bring it up?  Also your special pleading of some secret technology is a non argument.  Arbitrarily invoking secret technology can lead to all possible conclusions.  Therefore it is invalid for any conclusion. Do you understand this point?

People have commented on your posts and asked you questions.  Please do us the courtesy of responding to your interlocutors before going on. 
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 16, 2012, 05:21:32 PM
What would that prove?  Emulsions are not infinite.  Like homeopathy, eventually you reach a point where not a single (exposed) molecule remains.
Probably more important for our purposes are the effects of image compression. Every 'lossy' compression scheme, such as JPEG, discards information that can't be readily perceived anyway. That's precisely how they achieve their file size reductions, often by a factor of 10 or more. This includes "hidden details" that are "revealed" by extreme RGB (contrast) settings.

This is why purist digital photographers use raw mode in their cameras. JPEG produces perfectly acceptable images if you get the exposure, framing and white balance all correct, but it introduces artifacts that often become visible if you have to correct these things later. Once information is lost for any reason (including lossy compression) it can never be recovered. Only raw (lossless) mode captures all of the information the sensor produces, and even that is still only an approximation of reality.

There's a whole class of conspiracy theorists who base their arguments on such meaningless image manipulations. Mainly they're the "NASA's hiding the alien glass cities on the moon" crowd, not the "Apollo never happened" crowd. Basically, they're doing the equivalent of gazing at the lint in their navels and thinking it means something. All they see are image artifacts, and if they're working with digital images they're most likely compression artifacts.


Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 16, 2012, 05:21:51 PM
Anyway, the question is the following- ` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Please, your answer is very crucial for me ! It is not for discussion, just shoot a straight answer. Thank you!

Yes we know your game too.  It was apparent from the start.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tanalia on June 16, 2012, 05:29:36 PM
Yes we know your game too.  It was apparent form the start.
Yeah, straight from the classic "only asking questions / simple discussion" to the patented "if you don't agree with me on Conspiracy X you're a paid government shill and are irrelevant."

Nothing to see here...
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 16, 2012, 05:41:53 PM
Before going into moonhoax I would like to ask all of you the following question. This is an off-topic question...

Yes, it most certainly is.

... but by answering it, it will  help me to understand if you truly represent science and reasoning, or you represent sides.

Or a better way of putting it; "...So I don't need to pretend to do science but can just claim my opponents are motivated solely by partisanship."

Really?  You are going to test to see if the members of a science-based board are going to apply science to a question -- by asking them to jump straight to a yes or no answer without invoking the scientific method?

Ludicrous.  Your very test method refutes what you claim it is testing.

One must understand, the testimony of people whose paychecks are dependent on their picked sides, is irrelevant.

An empty claim.  First you have to show that, yes, their paychecks ARE dependent on their answer.  THEN you have to show the answer is wrong.

I was once employed by the US Army.  I was in S3 (training) and on occasion was tasked -- was demanded, under threat not just to my paycheck but for actual punishment -- to instruct other soldiers on the proper use of a GM angle, how to take a back-azimuth, and other basics of map usage.  Does that mean that what I told those soldiers was wrong?  Does that mean that, when I say the phrase "The GM angle is the difference between magnetic North and Grid North" that you are constrained to ONLY look at my military history, rank, and the conditions of purported duress under which I made that statement in order to determine if this is correct?  That you can not check against known principles of navigation?  That you are free to reject the idea that magnetic north is true north based entirely on what you feel about the person making the statement?

Asinine.

It would be irrelevant to ask a NASA employee if he believes in moonlandings.

This reminds me of a recent poster who declined to include any evidence that was not a direct part of Apollo 11.

And for a very similar reason.  Your litmus tests are foolish and wrong.  That's not the way we do it here, or any other science-based board.  We DON'T ask NASA employees if they "believe" they helped men land on the Moon.  We ask them HOW they did it.  And then we compare that HOW against the known science and practices of physics, astronomy, thermodynamics, aerospace engineering, etc.

Anyway, the question is the following- ` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Please, your answer is very crucial for me ! It is not for discussion, just shoot a straight answer. Thank you!

No.  I'm not playing your mind games.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 16, 2012, 05:42:05 PM
Before going into moonhoax I would like to ask all of you the following question. This is an off-topic question, but by answering it, it will  help me to understand if you truly represent science and reasoning, or you represent sides. One must understand, the testimony of people whose paychecks are dependent on their picked sides, is irrelevant. It would be irrelevant to ask a NASA employee if he believes in moonlandings. Anyway, the question is the following- ` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Please, your answer is very crucial for me ! It is not for discussion, just shoot a straight answer. Thank you!
A credibility test question?  Gee, who does that remind me of?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 16, 2012, 06:53:10 PM
Advancedboy, please either make your arguments or leave.  This is not the place to "test" us before deciding whether or not you will come to the point - doing so will only make people frustrated and make you look like someone who wishes to stir up drama for the sake of it.

Your point, please.

That I believe it what trolling is.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: raven on June 16, 2012, 07:01:56 PM
Before going into moonhoax I would like to ask all of you the following question. This is an off-topic question, but by answering it, it will  help me to understand if you truly represent science and reasoning, or you represent sides. One must understand, the testimony of people whose paychecks are dependent on their picked sides, is irrelevant. It would be irrelevant to ask a NASA employee if he believes in moonlandings. Anyway, the question is the following- ` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Please, your answer is very crucial for me ! It is not for discussion, just shoot a straight answer. Thank you!
I notice that constant of use the word boxcutters to describe the weapons carried by the terrorists.
It sounds almost harmless, cardboard boxes aren't exactly tough to open, so it sounds like something akin to an industrial strength letter opener.
Yeah, except box cutters, well, they are those push out utility knives knives with the knock off blades. They are very sharp and could easily be used to slit someone's throat. I've cut my finger on those things enough to know you need barely any pressure at all.
Stab and drag.
But, as other's have pointed out, the question is irrelevant.
Even if 9/11 was an inside job, just how does it prove Apollo a hoax in any way?
As you yourself said, it has nothing to do with this discussion and therefore does not deserve an answer.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 16, 2012, 07:05:32 PM
Before going into moonhoax I would like to ask all of you the following question. This is an off-topic question, but by answering it, it will  help me to understand if you truly represent science and reasoning, or you represent sides. One must understand, the testimony of people whose paychecks are dependent on their picked sides, is irrelevant. It would be irrelevant to ask a NASA employee if he believes in moonlandings. Anyway, the question is the following- ` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Please, your answer is very crucial for me ! It is not for discussion, just shoot a straight answer. Thank you!

Let's assume that 9-11 was an inside job, which I do not believe. What bearing does this have on the moon landings? If you want to deal with strong and weak arguments, and I have explained my position on this point very clearly, then please present evidence that radiation prohibited a manned lunar landing. The radiation card is the hoax theorists strongest card (again their position - not mine). I am now awaiting you evidence on this point. It's a question of science, not government agendas, that decide the laws of physics. I am interested to hear your evidence on this point, and how it matches with those laws.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 16, 2012, 07:08:21 PM
Even if 9/11 was an inside job, just how does it prove Apollo a hoax in any way?

Interesting. Today I have made two posts on this thread, and each time I submitted I was asked whether I still wanted to submit because a new post has been added while I was typing.

Both times, someone made the same point as me. Exactly, even if 9/11 was an inside job, just how does it prove Apollo a hoax in any way? I'd like an answer to that question too.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 16, 2012, 07:09:43 PM
Also, if 9/11 was an inside job, why couldn't that involve arming patsies with box cutters?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 16, 2012, 07:17:40 PM
Also, if 9/11 was an inside job, why couldn't that involve arming patsies with box cutters?

I read that as 'arming pasties with box cutters?'
Title: Re: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 16, 2012, 07:44:04 PM
Also, if 9/11 was an inside job, why couldn't that involve arming patsies with box cutters?

I read that as 'arming pasties with box cutters?'

Well they have to fight VAT rises somehow.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 16, 2012, 07:51:10 PM
Before going into moonhoax I would like to ask all of you the following question. This is an off-topic question, but by answering it, it will  help me to understand if you truly represent science and reasoning, or you represent sides. One must understand, the testimony of people whose paychecks are dependent on their picked sides, is irrelevant. It would be irrelevant to ask a NASA employee if he believes in moonlandings. Anyway, the question is the following- ` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Please, your answer is very crucial for me ! It is not for discussion, just shoot a straight answer. Thank you!

No. This is completely irrelevant and off topic for this section of the forum. 9/11 has nothing to do with Apollo. Continuing to venture into off topic areas will get you banned. Consider this your only warning.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: gillianren on June 16, 2012, 09:41:05 PM
Also, if 9/11 was an inside job, why couldn't that involve arming patsies with box cutters?

I read that as 'arming pasties with box cutters?'

That would be much more interesting, certainly.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: VincentMcConnell on June 16, 2012, 09:43:14 PM
9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Get over that nonsense. There is no evidence to suggest 9/11 was an inside job. The fact of the matter is that it was a small terrorist group from the middle east that simply hated America. You DO realize that terrorist attacks happen, right?
That's completely off-topic and I see exactly where you're going with this. This thread is going to "devolve" into you peddling bullcrap conspiracy theories until we entertain your nonsense. It's clear how you feel about 9/11, and if you really think the US Government would do something like killing 3,000 innocent Americans and destroying billions of dollars worth of property, you can screw off.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 16, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
9/11 is off topic in this section for everyone, Vincent, not just advancedboy.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: VincentMcConnell on June 16, 2012, 09:50:53 PM
9/11 is off topic in this section for everyone, Vincent, not just advancedboy.

That's why I said he should drop that nonsense. The name of the website even has "APOLLO" in it.
I just don't understand what the point of his post was... He came here to rate theories in which he
probably believes, calls them weak, uses them later and then starts bringing up other whacky theo-
ries.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: DataCable on June 16, 2012, 10:38:17 PM
One must understand, the testimony of people whose paychecks are dependent on their picked sides, is irrelevant. It would be irrelevant to ask a NASA employee if he believes in moonlandings.
NASA employees' paychecks are not dependent upon their belief in the authenticity of the Apollo program.

Quote
` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`
Irrelevant, off-topic, and a false dichotomy.

So, on to a strong argument.  Footage of the lunar rover shows lunar regolith kicked up by the wheels with absolutely no sign of fine particles billowing in a persistent cloud, indicating that this footage was filmed in a vacuum.  There is no vacuum chamber on Earth anywhere near large enough to construct such a set.  One hoax proponent claimed that the "sand" used on the lunar set could have been "washed and sifted" to remove all particles fine enough to arisolize.  However, he could not provide examples of this process ever being performed, declined to demonstrate such a process himself, and could not explain how to prevent new fine particles from being formed by mutual abrasion of larger particles from simple handling the processed material (transporting, pouring, etc.)  In fact, he was completely incredulous that the latter would even occur. 
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 16, 2012, 10:41:58 PM
Three pages so far.  Hum.  Wonder if we'll hear more from him.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 17, 2012, 03:31:39 AM
I already told you I am not going to discuss 9/11. it was a question of how `investigative` as a person you are. I can`t prove that you are credible, but I can draw som econclusions by asking a simple 9/11 question. All you had to do is simply say `yes` or `no`. You don`t have to twist and twitch in endless comments how it is off topic .it is the same as if you claimed to be a physicist, and I asked a question of what does 3.14 represent, and you would endlessly comment how much it is off topic.

Alright, as I see you are soooo much afraid to answer the question, i already have my own suspicions. Let`s leave it at that. At least , thank you  Vincent for showing where you stand. Let`s talk moonlandings.
Let`s start with very simple assumtions.
Assumption 1. Russians would have complained about Apollo, had it been faked.
Possible variations. Having proof about your adversary faking moonlanding would be used as an asset without an expiry date. What does mafia do to coerce people in committing murders and other crimes? They let you commit one( by hefty bonusing) and collect evidence for later blackmailing. Once you are in the fold, you are in the fold.If I were Soviet Union, I would use it for the good of our own people, and would demand in exchange for silence `price negotiations` for raw material purchase.
Why would I need an intangible consolation that I have won a mystical cold war? People individually don`t care about winning, they care about income, utilites, their families and health. Pride comes after a paycheck, so does religion.
It doesn`t mean US didnt have intelligence data on USSR, that would be less compelling. Go figure.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 17, 2012, 03:40:14 AM
Sigh, you really do have to realize that we're used to this kind of game.  "I was expecting X reaction, I did not receive it, so you must not know what you're talking about" -- your post was very much an obvious set-up.  Also, how would a physicist being queried on pi correlate?  It's more like going up to someone and saying you want to talk about China, and then asking them, "Was India Hindu?  Yes or no?"  Leading to the Historian going "Buh?  What's that have to do with China?"

It also isn't endless commenting, but more like several historians all collectively going "Wait, what?"  There's more than one poster, I think you'll find.  The more than 24 hour wait for a response also will necessarily lead to more people posting to amuse themselves.

Also, "yes or no" didn't apply, since you did not frame it as a yes/no question, but that's small potatoes.

Quote
Assumption 1. Russians would have complained about Apollo, had it been faked.
Possible variations. Having proof about your adversary faking moonlanding would be used as an asset without an expiry date. What does mafia do to coerce people in committing murders and other crimes? They let you commit one( by hefty bonusing) and collect evidence for later blackmailing. Once you are in the fold, you are in the fold.If I were Soviet Union, I would use it for the good of our own people, and would demand in exchange for silence `price negotiations` for raw material purchase.
  Speculation.  This is entirely an "If I Ran The Zoo" form of argument.  What actual data would support your view of events?

Quote
Why would I need an intangible consolation that I have won a mystical cold war?

For that matter, then, why would either side spend so much time and money on getting into space?  The US wasn't the only one getting up there, and even if you argue that it was all done in a film studio, the amount of effort and money to spend to truly simulate 0 gravity, fake all that telemetry being constantly sent that was nearly impossible to fake, etc. would have been massively expensive (and quite implausible, at that); it was rather obvious, from events, that both sides took the space race very seriously.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 17, 2012, 03:42:20 AM
I already told you I am not going to discuss 9/11. it was a question of how `investigative` as a person you are. I can`t prove that you are credible, but I can draw som econclusions by asking a simple 9/11 question.

No, you can't. The question tells us far more about you than anything else. If you are claiming to be able to deduce from a 'yes or no' answer just how 'investigative' we are, then you are presupposing that any investigation must lead to the same conclusion you already have drawn. Since you will not tell us what that conclusion is (and since we have seen this tactic used before), I see no reason to play that kind of game. 9/11 is irrelevant.

Quote
it is the same as if you claimed to be a physicist, and I asked a question of what does 3.14 represent, and you would endlessly comment how much it is off topic.

No, it is nothing like that. 3.14 is a universal constant that any physicist would recognise. 9/11 is an irrelevant tangent to a discussion about Apollo.

Quote
Assumption 1. Russians would have complained about Apollo, had it been faked.

And eveything else that follows that is very very weak. The US could have no guarantee that the USSR would maintain their silence even if they did pay for it. The risks involved in faking Apollo are simply too great when compared to the benefits of doing the work to actually land men on the Moon. And since the stated political purpose of Apollo was to show the worl that the US was better than the USSR, if the Russians ever find out then it's game over.

In any case, you have yet to demonstrate that Apollo was faked. Debating possible motives and means of coverup is rather like debating my means and motive for murdering my wife and disposing of the body, and trying to secure a murder conviction from it, before checking to see if she's actually dead.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 17, 2012, 04:03:23 AM
I already told you I am not going to discuss 9/11. it was a question of how `investigative` as a person you are. I can`t prove that you are credible, but I can draw som econclusions by asking a simple 9/11 question. All you had to do is simply say `yes` or `no`. You don`t have to twist and twitch in endless comments how it is off topic .it is the same as if you claimed to be a physicist, and I asked a question of what does 3.14 represent, and you would endlessly comment how much it is off topic.

How does "yes" or "no" prove an ability to discuss evidence and use science?

It doesn't.  The only thing a binary answer of this kind can serve as is a litmus test for political bias.

Probing for knowledge of physical constants (or irrational numbers) is different.  That can show the other party has some familiarity with at least that subject.



Alright, as I see you are soooo much afraid to answer the question, i already have my own suspicions. Let`s leave it at that. At least , thank you  Vincent for showing where you stand. Let`s talk moonlandings.
Let`s start with very simple assumtions.

And thus begins the Gish Gallop.

How about, stop playing games, and present your case simply and directly, concentrating on what you think is the strongest evidence for your point?

All these meta discussions and off-topic questions and pretending to play both sides of the fence are distracting, annoying, pointless, and boring.


Assumption 1. Russians would have complained about Apollo, had it been faked.
Possible variations. Having proof about your adversary faking moonlanding would be used as an asset without an expiry date. What does mafia do to coerce people in committing murders and other crimes? They let you commit one( by hefty bonusing) and collect evidence for later blackmailing. Once you are in the fold, you are in the fold.If I were Soviet Union, I would use it for the good of our own people, and would demand in exchange for silence `price negotiations` for raw material purchase.
Why would I need an intangible consolation that I have won a mystical cold war? People individually don`t care about winning, they care about income, utilites, their families and health. Pride comes after a paycheck, so does religion.
It doesn`t mean US didnt have intelligence data on USSR, that would be less compelling. Go figure.

And?

Yes, it is vaguely possible there could be compelling short-term gains in staying silent and using blackmail.  But suggesting it is far from showing it.  Political power IS economic power and vice versa.  Looking bad before the world -- losing the space race -- loses them political swing in places that also are important to them economically.

And by the by, your Maslov's hierarchies are flawed here.  If everyone put a paycheck ahead of all other possible goals, there would be, for instance, NO TEACHERS.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 17, 2012, 04:09:24 AM
I always wonder if HBs in this kind of situation imagine themselves as Juror 2 from 12 Angry Men?  That they "just ask simple questions" bit by bit, but by the end of the movie they find they've convinced the whole jury that there was a conspiracy?  Then they naturally get frustrated when it doesn't work out that way, especially when they get confronted by obstacle after obstacle in actual evidence.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 17, 2012, 04:37:35 AM
All I need is a plausibility for the scenario given. Plausible or not? No twitching, please!

Question 2. Engineering legacy. As we know Russians sold their RD-180 to Americans so they could use it for their rocketry. You might argue that it was a much newer engine venture spun  off from 80ies, while F-1 was much older design. yet consider RD-180 is a modernised engine of Apollo era Soviet design. We might Ask where are the endless improvements of F-1 that would be used today in American rocketry? I know that F-1 was supposedly very powerful with a lift of about 600 tons, while Rd-180 is a much weaker design. Now you will try to prove finance issues by telling that Russian design is simply cheaper, and that`s all.  Interestingly how much money did they save by building Space Shuttle complex with a completely different engines than f-!. With a superb reliability of F-1, it seems odd it hasn`t found its application nowadays. Might we say- it was too good and too powerful?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 17, 2012, 04:40:27 AM
Really, no, "Question 1" is not too plausible, especially if you want to argue they kept it a secret indefinitely.  No records?  No one coming forward, even after the fall of the USSR?  This is even ignoring the logic of them concealing it in the first place, which doesn't make much else.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 17, 2012, 05:05:03 AM
All I need is a plausibility for the scenario given. Plausible or not? No twitching, please!

OK. No, it is not plausible. It makes no sense. On the other hand, actually going to the moon achieves the object of making the US look good and avoids any issues of having to 'buy silence'.

Quote
Interestingly how much money did they save by building Space Shuttle complex with a completely different engines than f-!.

The shuttle engines use a different fuel combination, so they couldn't have used the F-1 anyway. The SSME was developed out of Apollo hardware, however, being based on development programs from the J-2 engine.

Quote
With a superb reliability of F-1, it seems odd it hasn`t found its application nowadays. Might we say- it was too good and too powerful?

Too big, too powerful, and too expensive. That really is all the explanation you need to look for.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 17, 2012, 05:09:51 AM
All I need is a plausibility for the scenario given. Plausible or not? No twitching, please!
Sorry, but plausibility isn't enough. Evidence something actually happened is what you need.
Quote
With a superb reliability of F-1, it seems odd it hasn`t found its application nowadays. Might we say- it was too good and too powerful?
"Too powerful"? No. Each Shuttle SRB had a liftoff thrust of 12 MN; the F-1, only 6.77 MN.

"Too good?" Nope again. The F-1 had a sea-level specific impulse of 263 seconds. The RD-180 has a sea-level impulse of 311 seconds. This is a remarkably big difference for two engines burning the same propellants, RP-1 kerosene and LOX. This probably has to do with the very different designs of the two engines; the F-1 used a gas generator cycle, simple but inefficient, while the RD-180 uses staged combustion, much more complex but also much more efficient.

In fact, the F-1's Isp is almost as poor as the 242 seconds of the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor, another rocket designed primarily for maximum thrust, not maximum performance. Solids are well known to have significantly poorer performance than nearly any modern liquid bipropellant rocket, but they're much easier and cheaper to build for large amounts of thrust -- and that's why they've become so popular.


Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 17, 2012, 05:20:01 AM
Alright, as I see you are soooo much afraid to answer the question... blah blah blah

Then answer mine, one which you have conveniently skipped as you move the goalposts and flit around subjects. Adopting your initial weak versus strong position, hoax theorists present radiation as their strongest argument to hoax the moon landings. Why is this argument such a strong case. After all, you have your suspicions, so let's start with what is considered the hoax theorists trump card.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 17, 2012, 05:25:02 AM
I'm actually confused at what your point is.  What are you actually trying to do here?

Are you arguing that the moonlandings were faked?

If so, what is your evidence?  Trying to spin speculative stories does not constitute evidence.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: DataCable on June 17, 2012, 07:33:02 AM
All you had to do is simply say `yes` or `no`.
You did not present a "yes or no" question, your presented a false dichotomy between two options.

Quote
Let`s talk moonlandings.
Let's.

Quote
Let`s start with very simple assumtions.
I prefer to start with evidence, not assumptions.

You entitled this thread "Strong arguments versus weak arguments," yet all you've done is present what you consider to be weak arguments.  I presented what I consider to be a strong argument in post #36.  Please address it:

Footage of the lunar rover shows lunar regolith kicked up by the wheels with absolutely no sign of fine particles billowing in a persistent cloud, indicating that this footage was filmed in a vacuum.  There is no vacuum chamber on Earth anywhere near large enough to construct such a set.  One hoax proponent claimed that the "sand" used on the lunar set could have been "washed and sifted" to remove all particles fine enough to arisolize.  However, he could not provide examples of this process ever being performed, declined to demonstrate such a process himself, and could not explain how to prevent new fine particles from being formed by mutual abrasion of larger particles from simple handling the processed material (transporting, pouring, etc.)  In fact, he was completely incredulous that the latter would even occur. 
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 17, 2012, 08:49:42 AM
I can`t prove that you are credible, but I can draw som econclusions by asking a simple 9/11 question.

A more interesting topic: why is ideological credibility important to you?  What conclusions about us do you draw from the responses?  Specifically, what conclusion do you draw from my response that we were onto your game from your first post?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 17, 2012, 09:05:04 AM
A more interesting topic: why is ideological credibility important to you?

Ever notice that theorists cling on to ideological credibility? That's because they cannot answer questions of science. One only has to observe the debate between Jay and HWSNBN 2 at the Iambi. Once HWSNBN 2 could not answer Jay's questions, he shifted to the credibility of NASA over the Apollo 1 accident. HWSNBN 2 still has unanswered questions at the Iambi. I am seeing a pattern and the number of threads that finish with unanswered questions and gish gallops.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 17, 2012, 09:06:44 AM
Interestingly how much money did they save by building Space Shuttle complex with a completely different engines than f-!. With a superb reliability of F-1, it seems odd it hasn`t found its application nowadays. Might we say- it was too good and too powerful?

The F-1 engine and the shuttle main engines burn different fuels.  Specifically, the F-1 burnt RP1, a form of kerosene, while the SME burns hydrogen.   Hydrogen is a more efficient fuel to burn but takes up much more volume.  The amount of energy needed from the Saturn V  first stage was simply too high to accommodate the bulk needed to store the required amount of hydrogen.

I was going to comment that your lack of knowledge about rocketry was leading you to be suspicious of Apollo, but then thought about it and decided that your questions were just part of your game of searching for ideological agreement.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 17, 2012, 09:14:04 AM
I am seeing a pattern and the number of threads that finish with unanswered questions and gish gallops.

Yes it is quite familiar.  Advancedboy is either someone who thinks in the same way as an old friend of the board or actually is an old friend. 
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 17, 2012, 09:31:01 AM
@Data Cable.`Footage of the lunar rover shows lunar regolith kicked up by the wheels with absolutely no sign of fine particles billowing in a persistent cloud, indicating that this footage was filmed in a vacuum.  There is no vacuum chamber on Earth anywhere near large enough to construct such a set.  One hoax proponent claimed that the "sand" used on the lunar set could have been "washed and sifted" to remove all particles fine enough to arisolize.  However, he could not provide examples of this process ever being performed, declined to demonstrate such a process himself, and could not explain how to prevent new fine particles from being formed by mutual abrasion of larger particles from simple handling the processed material (transporting, pouring, etc.)  In fact, he was completely incredulous that the latter would even occur.  `
  There are no high quality videos of lunar dust closeup being kicked up by astronauts. If you go to a beach and start kicking around sand, you won`t see any clouds either. I don`t see what could have stopped NASA from either using wet sand or adding coagulants. What we need to do is to check more videos if the sand doesn`t manage to fall faster down to the ground than the astronaut hanging on wires. I will try to check some videos. Are you going to demand and parrot again about proof? Ok, I will give you a blue-ray dvd where an astronaut is hosing with water the studio sand while holding a card of social securty right in front of him. That is what you need, right?

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 17, 2012, 09:35:31 AM
Jason, this is your quote-`The shuttle engines use a different fuel combination, so they couldn't have used the F-1 anyway`
 I have a question, are you mocking yourself?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 17, 2012, 09:37:53 AM
@Data Cable.`Footage of the lunar rover shows lunar regolith kicked up by the wheels with absolutely no sign of fine particles billowing in a persistent cloud, indicating that this footage was filmed in a vacuum.  There is no vacuum chamber on Earth anywhere near large enough to construct such a set.  One hoax proponent claimed that the "sand" used on the lunar set could have been "washed and sifted" to remove all particles fine enough to arisolize.  However, he could not provide examples of this process ever being performed, declined to demonstrate such a process himself, and could not explain how to prevent new fine particles from being formed by mutual abrasion of larger particles from simple handling the processed material (transporting, pouring, etc.)  In fact, he was completely incredulous that the latter would even occur.  `

Interestingly that same hoax proponent tried the same rigged credibility tests that you did.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 17, 2012, 10:00:52 AM
@Data Cable.`Footage of the lunar rover shows lunar regolith kicked up by the wheels with absolutely no sign of fine particles billowing in a persistent cloud, indicating that this footage was filmed in a vacuum.  There is no vacuum chamber on Earth anywhere near large enough to construct such a set.  One hoax proponent claimed that the "sand" used on the lunar set could have been "washed and sifted" to remove all particles fine enough to arisolize.  However, he could not provide examples of this process ever being performed, declined to demonstrate such a process himself, and could not explain how to prevent new fine particles from being formed by mutual abrasion of larger particles from simple handling the processed material (transporting, pouring, etc.)  In fact, he was completely incredulous that the latter would even occur.  `
  There are no high quality videos of lunar dust closeup being kicked up by astronauts. If you go to a beach and start kicking around sand, you won`t see any clouds either. I don`t see what could have stopped NASA from either using wet sand or adding coagulants. What we need to do is to check more videos if the sand doesn`t manage to fall faster down to the ground than the astronaut hanging on wires. I will try to check some videos. Are you going to demand and parrot again about proof? Ok, I will give you a blue-ray dvd where an astronaut is hosing with water the studio sand while holding a card of social securty right in front of him. That is what you need, right?



We need some kind of evidence.  No hoax proponents ever provide evidence of an actual hoax, they just try to offer up evidence of anomalies (false though they are) in the record, for which there could be a great many explanation.  You haven't even gotten to step one.  You have try to show anything is wrong with the record, you've just offered (bad) speculation on how it could have been done, which is entirely pointless.

It couldn't have been sand that was used because it isn't sand on the Moon.  It is dust.

Jason, this is your quote-`The shuttle engines use a different fuel combination, so they couldn't have used the F-1 anyway`
 I have a question, are you mocking yourself?

Why do you ask that?  Do you find something particularly incredulous about what Jason said.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: raven on June 17, 2012, 10:11:36 AM
@Data Cable.`Footage of the lunar rover shows lunar regolith kicked up by the wheels with absolutely no sign of fine particles billowing in a persistent cloud, indicating that this footage was filmed in a vacuum.  There is no vacuum chamber on Earth anywhere near large enough to construct such a set.  One hoax proponent claimed that the "sand" used on the lunar set could have been "washed and sifted" to remove all particles fine enough to arisolize.  However, he could not provide examples of this process ever being performed, declined to demonstrate such a process himself, and could not explain how to prevent new fine particles from being formed by mutual abrasion of larger particles from simple handling the processed material (transporting, pouring, etc.)  In fact, he was completely incredulous that the latter would even occur.  `
  There are no high quality videos of lunar dust closeup being kicked up by astronauts. If you go to a beach and start kicking around sand, you won`t see any clouds either. I don`t see what could have stopped NASA from either using wet sand or adding coagulants. What we need to do is to check more videos if the sand doesn`t manage to fall faster down to the ground than the astronaut hanging on wires. I will try to check some videos. Are you going to demand and parrot again about proof? Ok, I will give you a blue-ray dvd where an astronaut is hosing with water the studio sand while holding a card of social securty right in front of him. That is what you need, right?
Actually, there is plenty. The 16mm DAC  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cKpzp358F4)footage is especially nice, but even the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cKpzp358F4) on later missions is quite good quality.
Archive.org also has a lot of 16mm DAC footage worth checking out.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 17, 2012, 10:21:59 AM
Jason, this is your quote-`The shuttle engines use a different fuel combination, so they couldn't have used the F-1 anyway`
 I have a question, are you mocking yourself?

Jason is quite serious.  I suggest you NOT start the ad hominem attacks and educate yourself on shuttle engines if you wish to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 17, 2012, 10:24:40 AM
There are no high quality videos of lunar dust closeup being kicked up by astronauts.

There's plenty of 16 mm film of the dust.

Quote
If you go to a beach and start kicking around sand, you won`t see any clouds either.

Irrelevant, since lunar regolith is not sand, nor would it be expected to behave like sand.

Quote
I don`t see what could have stopped NASA from either using wet sand or adding coagulants.

Welcome back rocky.

Quote
What we need to do is to check more videos if the sand doesn`t manage to fall faster down to the ground than the astronaut hanging on wires.

Oh dear, here we go again. Are we going to have to tread the same ground of being unable to discern the behaviour of individual particles from video or film of a cloud of them?

Quote
That is what you need, right?

Drop the sarcasm. We've already seen through your pretence of being somewhat neutral in this discussion, so get to the business of presenting your evidence and stop wasting our time.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 17, 2012, 10:26:32 AM
Jason, this is your quote-`The shuttle engines use a different fuel combination, so they couldn't have used the F-1 anyway`
 I have a question, are you mocking yourself?

Not at all. As powerful as the F-1 is, the kerosene/LOX fuel combination is a poor cousin to the LH2/LOX combination of the shuttle main engines. Or are you suggesting you have a better understanding of the best way to design a rocket than people who actually do it for a living?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 17, 2012, 11:02:59 AM
If you go to a beach and start kicking around sand, you won`t see any clouds either. I don`t see what could have stopped NASA from either using wet sand

I've only ever seen one person make that claim before. Thank you for confirming that you are a sock-puppet of a previously banned user of the forum. I suspected it from your first post, but the wet sand bit is a dead giveaway.

The question now is, do I ban you immediately, or give you a chance to answer our questions first?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 17, 2012, 11:23:47 AM
Moderator, if you checked the origin of my IP address, you would see that it originates from LV, which is where I come from. How could I be a sock puppet? You think I travelled to Latvia to have an argument with this forum? if you really wanted to check me out, you could send me an email to a post box registered in the same country, or you could check out my name in other forums, that I am registered with, such as secretprojectsforum.co.uk, productdesignforums.com, or ATS.com. it is not that hard to do!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: carpediem on June 17, 2012, 11:32:26 AM
Moderator, if you checked the origin of my IP address, you would see that it originates from LV, which is where I come from. How could I be a sock puppet?
Proxy server.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 17, 2012, 11:34:14 AM
or you could check out my name in other forums, that I am registered with, such as secretprojectsforum.co.uk, productdesignforums.com, or ATS.com. it is not that hard to do!

I just pasted each of those into my address bar.

The secret projects one doesn't exist.

The product design one doesn't connect.

ATS.com is not a forum.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 17, 2012, 11:50:32 AM
Try

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php

and

http://www.productdesignforums.com/user/49196-advancedboy/

ATS.com (http://www.ats.com/) is a data an telecommunications service company. 

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 17, 2012, 11:52:35 AM
Try

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php

and

http://www.productdesignforums.com/user/49196-advancedboy/

ATS.com (http://www.ats.com/) is a data an telecommunications service company.

Gotcha, ta.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 17, 2012, 11:57:59 AM
How could I be a sock puppet?

Just to get this clear.  Are you stating that you have not registered with the Apollohoax forum before either here at Apollohoax.net or on proboards (http://apollohoax.proboards.com)?  No wriggling please.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 17, 2012, 12:02:42 PM
Moderator, if you checked the origin of my IP address, you would see that it originates from LV, which is where I come from. How could I be a sock puppet? You think I travelled to Latvia to have an argument with this forum? if you really wanted to check me out, you could send me an email to a post box registered in the same country, or you could check out my name in other forums, that I am registered with, such as secretprojectsforum.co.uk, productdesignforums.com, or ATS.com. it is not that hard to do!

Reply #47. Please address my question. If you believe Apollo was a hoax, let us start with the theorists' 'strongest' argument.

So, do you believe Apollo was a hoax, or suspect is was? If yes, then please present your evidence to support to radiation argument, or do you think the radiation argument is weak. If so, then why?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 17, 2012, 12:04:20 PM
No, I haven`t been registered here before.  If I used a proxy server, or thor, I wouldn`t be able to register here again once again with the same I.P. Adress. But I f I reregsitered here again, I would still have the same IP adress.
 ATS- abovetopsecret.com,    and If I was a sock puppet, then sock puppet of whom? Can I see the user name, out of curiosity. If by mentioning wetting sand you suspect that I am a sock puppet, then it is weird. It is not really a rocket science to imagine that  to elimate dust, one could wet them or sift them for coarser grains.
Luke Pemberton< I do believe Apollo was hoaxed, no matter how supportive I am for US, my lifelong ( not that long) investigation in US car industry, aviation partly as well, consumer electronics, has been a huge disappointment. Whether I researched wing manufacturing of Boeing 787 outsourced for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Opel car platforms used for cadillacs , or constant rebadging of import poducts under US brand names, be it Magnavox, Norelco, etc, it was constant pain to find a single core of engineering facility that would do a real engineering work of precision manufactured items at home. And that broke my heart.
 As to Apollo, and what is the hoaxers strongest argument, i don`t know. I don`t represent them, i represent myself. Each of those who believes apollo was hoaxed, has his own arguments as strongest. As to radiation , I believe it is insurmountable issue. I can`t imagine that attitude and risk of astronauts that could have taken a risk of going through van Allen`s, and still be risking their lifes to unpredictable solar flares, space radiation, defragmantation of radiation hitting spacecraft and the radiation on the lunar surface bouncing back. I do believe scientificAmerican article in those years was right, stating the approximate range of radiation, which allowed Mr. Jarrah White to calculate exact doses each astonaut would get. And I believe Van Allen was threatened to either withdraw or be silent about his radiation discoveries, although I am no privy to provide proof of such an occurence. If you go to Jarrah White`s channel , he has a lot of videos dealing with radiation, he has even updated and revisited them. And you can call me stupid, but if my life hanged at a thread, Jarrah White would be a kind of person I would trust my life, although I am not personally familiar with him. I don`t know if he will die poor or rich, or happy or not, but I know he will die honest.  Another thing that bothers me about radiation is how brave and careless the astronauts were on the moon, they didn`t care to read or report or inquire about radiation readings, or what exact dose they got from  the sun as well, or the battery meters on their lunar rover, why didn`t they report the battery levels? There are many things that beg to ask questions, even the star question. I don`t believe if they tried to hide  behind in a shadow of a large boulder, having only black sky and 7% albedo from the lunar surface, that they wouldn`t be able to film or photograph stars. At least they would be able to see Jupiter or Venus.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: VincentMcConnell on June 17, 2012, 12:11:35 PM
The only person whom I've ever seen use the wet sand below dry sand argument was Jarrah White.
Is AdvancedBoy Jarrah?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 17, 2012, 12:14:37 PM
The only person whom I've ever seen use the wet sand below dry sand argument was Jarrah White.
Is AdvancedBoy Jarrah?

Rocky.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 17, 2012, 12:16:08 PM
No, I haven`t been registered here before. 

Thank you for a direct answer.

Quote
If by mentioning wetting sand you suspect that I am a sock puppet, then it is weird.

The combination of wet sand argument and the 9/11 litmus test of credibility is the schtick of a known crank.  It is weird that you would use the same two items.

Quote
It is not really a rocket science to imagine that  to elimate dust, one could wet them or sift them for coarser grains.
It is not rocket science the imagine that a pink gay unicorn could fly to the moon, but it doesn't make it scientifically meaningful.
However it is rocket science to understand rockets and we do have rocket scientists and engineers on this board. 
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 17, 2012, 12:16:50 PM
The only person whom I've ever seen use the wet sand below dry sand argument was Jarrah White.
Is AdvancedBoy Jarrah?

Not a chance. It's not even his style of writing. In fairness to HWSNBN 2, he would not hide behind a sock either, he'd be quite open about his identity. HWSNBN 2 wouldn't come here anyway. That would mean answering far too many difficult questions, and exposing him for what he is. HWSNBN 2 has an alternative agenda, and its not about truth. Why come here and leave a permanent record of ignorance and damage his ulterior motives for investment in the hoax?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 17, 2012, 12:18:32 PM
It is not really a rocket science to imagine that  to elimate dust, one could wet them or sift them for coarser grains.

And that would solve the dust problem, would it? As in, make the dust behave like dust, so it can be kicked up in fine clouds rather than huge lumps, without making finer grains as it rubs together as people walk or drive over it?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: VincentMcConnell on June 17, 2012, 12:19:28 PM
Quote
Not a chance. It's not even his style of writing. In fairness to HWSNBN 2, he would not hide behind a sock either, he'd be quite open about his identity. HWSNBN 2 wouldn't come here anyway. That would mean answering far too many difficult questions, and exposing him for what he is. HWSNBN 2 has an alternative agenda, and its not about truth. Why come here and leave a permanent record of ignorance and damage his ulterior motives for investment in the hoax?

I didn't think it was, but someone suggested they had only heard one other person say that before. I know JW lurks these forums sometimes but I didn't think he'd create an account and then use tactics like this.
If it weren't for the absence of pages and pages and pages of data and transcript, I'd say it could be FattyDasher.

--EDITED to include a quote from previous poster--
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 17, 2012, 12:20:28 PM
If by mentioning wetting sand you suspect that I am a sock puppet, then it is weird.

It's more than just that. It is funny that you should bring that up and use the 9/11 credibility test as well. Are you going to suggest the lurkers are watching and judging later on?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Zakalwe on June 17, 2012, 01:01:06 PM
Hello, my name is Advancedboy. I would like to participate in the forum by having a neutral discussion , as far as it is possible to be neutral.


Luke Pemberton< I do believe Apollo was hoaxed, no matter how supportive I am for US, my lifelong ( not that long) investigation in US car industry, aviation partly as well, consumer electronics, has been a huge disappointment. Whether I researched wing manufacturing of Boeing 787 outsourced for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Opel car platforms used for cadillacs , or constant rebadging of import poducts under US brand names, be it Magnavox, Norelco, etc, it was constant pain to find a single core of engineering facility that would do a real engineering work of precision manufactured items at home. And that broke my heart.
 As to Apollo, and what is the hoaxers strongest argument, i don`t know. I don`t represent them, i represent myself. Each of those who believes apollo was hoaxed, has his own arguments as strongest. As to radiation , I believe it is insurmountable issue. I can`t imagine that attitude and risk of astronauts that could have taken a risk of going through van Allen`s, and still be risking their lifes to unpredictable solar flares, space radiation, defragmantation of radiation hitting spacecraft and the radiation on the lunar surface bouncing back. I do believe scientificAmerican article in those years was right, stating the approximate range of radiation, which allowed Mr. Jarrah White to calculate exact doses each astonaut would get. And I believe Van Allen was threatened to either withdraw or be silent about his radiation discoveries, although I am no privy to provide proof of such an occurence. If you go to Jarrah White`s channel , he has a lot of videos dealing with radiation, he has even updated and revisited them. And you can call me stupid, but if my life hanged at a thread, Jarrah White would be a kind of person I would trust my life, although I am not personally familiar with him. I don`t know if he will die poor or rich, or happy or not, but I know he will die honest.  Another thing that bothers me about radiation is how brave and careless the astronauts were on the moon, they didn`t care to read or report or inquire about radiation readings, or what exact dose they got from  the sun as well, or the battery meters on their lunar rover, why didn`t they report the battery levels? There are many things that beg to ask questions, even the star question. I don`t believe if they tried to hide  behind in a shadow of a large boulder, having only black sky and 7% albedo from the lunar surface, that they wouldn`t be able to film or photograph stars. At least they would be able to see Jupiter or Venus.


Blimey. The supposed neutrality didn't last long, now did it? ::) ::)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 17, 2012, 01:11:16 PM
Moderator, if you checked the origin of my IP address, you would see that it originates from LV, which is where I come from. How could I be a sock puppet? You think I travelled to Latvia to have an argument with this forum?

You must think I'm stupid. There are these things called "proxy servers" that let you mask your location by accessing the website indirectly. You can be anywhere in the world and make it appear that you are in Latvia. Therefore, having a different IP address does not mean you are not the same person.

What convinces me of your sock-puppetry is the uniqueness of your "9/11 test" and your "wet sand" claim. Either one of those alone would be suspicious. Both of them together is obvious.

Quote
if you really wanted to check me out, you could send me an email to a post box registered in the same country,

That's as meaningless as IP addresses. There is nothing stopping someone in Japan (for example) from creating an email account in Latvia.

If you are really in Latvia, send me your actual physical address or any address that you can receive mail at (real mail, not email) and I will send you a post card. If you can tell us what I wrote on the post card I'll believe you're in Latvia.

Quote
or you could check out my name in other forums, that I am registered with, such as secretprojectsforum.co.uk, productdesignforums.com, or ATS.com. it is not that hard to do!

Also meaningless when it comes to proving you're not the same person that I've banned here. You've created multiple accounts under different names all over the internet. How does that prove anything?

This may come as a shock to you, but your aliases on the internet are not your real identity. You can have multiple identities online.

No, I haven`t been registered here before.  If I used a proxy server, or thor, I wouldn`t be able to register here again once again with the same I.P. Adress.

You wouldn't be able to register with the same IP address if I had banned it, but there is more than one proxy server in the world.

Quote
But I f I reregsitered here again, I would still have the same IP adress.

Not necessarily. In fact you would almost certainly have a different IP address every time you used the proxy server because they are not permanently assigned to you. I would have to ban the entire proxy server, not just individual IP addresses. And that's assuming you didn't use an entirely different proxy server (like I said, there is more than one).

Quote
If I was a sock puppet, then sock puppet of whom? Can I see the user name, out of curiosity.

Here are a couple...

Rocky (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=userrecentposts&user=rocky)
Rodin (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=userrecentposts&user=rodin)

...but there are almost certainly others, I just don't have time to search for them right now.

Quote
It is not really a rocket science to imagine that  to elimate dust, one could wet them or sift them for coarser grains.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the sifting. Thanks for mentioning it.

If the sand was wet, why didn't it clump up and stick to the astronauts boots? Like this:

(http://www.stormhoek.com/archives/muddy%20boots%2076%2010%2013%20001.jpg)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 17, 2012, 01:15:07 PM
Why the constant editing of your posts instead of new replies, advancedboy? Are you trying to make it look like people who already repsponded to the first bit you post are ignoring the rest?

As to radiation , I believe it is insurmountable issue.

Then go and learn about radiation from a proper source.

Quote
I can`t imagine that attitude and risk of astronauts that could have taken a risk of going through van Allen`s, and still be risking their lifes to unpredictable solar flares, space radiation, defragmantation of radiation hitting spacecraft and the radiation on the lunar surface bouncing back.

You know these guys were test pilots, right? They routinely, voluntarily, got into new unflown aircraft and took them up into the sky without knowing for certain if their return to Earth would be a smooth landing or a fiery death. These guys had 'Risk' with a capital R as part of their day jobs before they joined NASA. Why are the risks in NASA so much worse?

Quote
And I believe Van Allen was threatened to either withdraw or be silent about his radiation discoveries, although I am no privy to provide proof of such an occurence.

Then square your baseless supposition with the FACT that much data has been gathered on the radiation in space and NONE of it contradicts Van Allen in any way, nor suggests that Apollo was faked.

Quote
I know he will die honest.

What utter crap. Jarrah White would not know honesty if it bit him on the behind while wearing purple polka dot boxer shorts.

Quote
why didn`t they report the battery levels?

They did.

Quote
I don`t believe if they tried to hide  behind in a shadow of a large boulder, having only black sky and 7% albedo from the lunar surface, that they wouldn`t be able to film or photograph stars.

Then learn something about basic photography. They were not equipped to take pictures of the stars, and there is no reason they would be.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 17, 2012, 01:17:43 PM
Why the constant editing of your posts instead of new replies, advancedboy? Are you trying to make it look like people who already repsponded to the first bit you post are ignoring the rest?



I'd like to know that.  It's causing disruption, Rocky Advancedboy, so stop it please.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 17, 2012, 01:37:21 PM
...which allowed Mr. Jarrah White to calculate exact doses each astronaut would get.

He certainly has not. In any case, anyone who claims they can calculate exact doses clearly does not understand what they are talking about. Further, if Jarrah had the data to carry out the calculation, he has not intergrated the proton flux over its differential energy range and accounted for particle attenuation, so his methods are far removed from anything that an engineer of medical physicist would produce, and do not represent standard practice in the field. He has been told this several times. According to Jarrah's calculations, protons and electrons can magically pass through the CM material without losing energy.

Furthermore, Jarrah uses a rem per hour figure from a shock generated CME the 1950's, and applies this to H-alpha solar flare data. He simply multiplies the rem per hour (25 or 100 from memory for his shock CME event) by the duration of each H-alpha event during teach Apollo mission to arrive at a dose figure. This poses two problems to my knowledge. Firstly, the H-alpha event does not release protons throughout its duration (if any at all). If particles are released, this occurs during the impulsive phase of the flare when reconnection of the coronal magnetic field occurs, which is less than the time of the H-alpha prominence. Secondly, flares are highly directed events, so not all are incident on the Moon-Earth system. There is a perfectly good example of this during the MARIE mission, where a solar flare was detected by the MARIE craft, but was not detected by probes in the vicinity of the Earth-Moon system. Jarrah has been told this fact, but still assumes that all solar flares are directed at Earth.

In any case, Jarrah's use of H-alpha events is highly flawed. The main threat for astronauts are shock generated CME events. This generally occurs when the CME speed is greater than 1800 km/s, causing a spatial separation between the electron and proton components of the solar plasma, which in turn creates a high E-field that accelerates protons towards the Earth. Such an SPE event did not occur during the Apollo missions. One occurred between missions in 1972. Again, Jarrah has been told this, and simply does not understand ithe physics, or is simply fueled by his own pride and ego to correct his position. I suggest the latter.

Do you want me to carry on? I can drag up the boy wonder's bremstrahlung calculation if you really want, where he took a dimensionless number and gave it a unit of energy, while using a formula that applies to electrons with energies that are higher than than those found in the van Allen belts. Do you want to discuss that facet of his work - yes or no please?

Jarrah's view of particle interactions with matter is highly linear, and I mean that in a mathematical sense. Sadly, much of the physics that describse those interactions is derived from quantum mechanics, which is not linear. So all of Jarrah's calculations are flawed based on first principles.

As for Jarrah and his honesty, he has been asked to submit his work for review by relevent experts in the field. So far he declines, and states that his work is peer reviewed, although he will not disclose the name of his reviewer. He's been at his game for several years now. If he had any claims he would write up his claims, have it reviewed and then present his proof to the world. He's far from honest.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 17, 2012, 01:42:37 PM
I do believe Apollo was hoaxed...
I believe it is insurmountable...
I do believe scientificAmerican article...
And I believe Van Allen was threatened...
I don`t believe if they....

I believe that you don't know what you are talking about. 
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 17, 2012, 02:34:49 PM
If by mentioning wetting sand you suspect that I am a sock puppet, then it is weird.

It's more than just that. It is funny that you should bring that up and use the 9/11 credibility test as well. Are you going to suggest the lurkers are watching and judging later on?

Or that we'll be laughed out of a debating hall?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: AtomicDog on June 17, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
Don't forget the wave blowers!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: gillianren on June 17, 2012, 02:53:39 PM
Yeah, I found the "answer this completely irrelevant question or else I won't discuss anything with you" a bit of a giveaway myself.  LO, you might want to consider an official announcement that there was no amnesty with the changing of software or else make it a little easier for these people to get banned when they can't follow those rules.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 17, 2012, 03:14:16 PM
Jason, coarse sand  doesn`t have that much of dust . And simply by walking over it you wouldn`t dustify or grind to dust anything, at least no to noticeable amount.
`Then learn something about basic photography. They were not equipped to take pictures of the stars, and there is no reason they would be.` Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there, and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there. If the cameras could expose astronauts standing in complete shadow even being lit from the back by the sun, nothing would stop them from phtographing stars being inside a shadow.  Having trained for some time in design and sketching, I guess I know a thing or two about photography or shadows. It would be funny if they could turn the cameras all around and up pointing to the sky.
About the trained test pilots, who were not afraid because of their experience.  Well, the ejection seats and a parachute makes a huge difference in how brave a man can be.
And I edit my posts to get rid of some typos, but I still get many. Don`t you bother about that.


Lunar Orbit. Your picture of a boot is a bit funny, . Firstly have you seen many people with such clumps after having walked near the sea, or close to the waterline of a sandy beach? You do realize, the wetter the sand the more shallow the imprint will be? When I was in Canada, I lived in Ottawa for 4 months, more specifically in suburbs of Ottawa, Place`d Orleans. I went to the local river for swimming. Quiet often actually. The place was called Petrie Island or beach  if I recall  it correctly. I was surprised that no matter how strong the wind was , the sand was not blown around and seemed quiet solid.  I asked the lifeguard and he told me they use a kind of specific glue they spray over the sand to make it cling together. At the same time I could dig it , but there would be no dust, but it seemed almost as if humid or wet.Don`t you think your boot pic is a notch exaggerated.
As to my identity. I can speak perfect Latvian and write as well, I am coherent in Russian, slightly aware of German. You can check me that way. We can talk through skype, as my registration place would indicate year registered( many years ago)  and it would be very unlikely  that I had been using a proxy server to register a secret skype account in Latvia  many years ago. Yes, you could send me a postcard, but that would take 2 weeks to get here, and about 2 weeks to get back. That is how our post works. Or I could simply make a picture of myself in my town with a paper that would say your name. I could stand next to a recognisable feature.
Luke, Jarrah chose the lowest possible radiation levels to calcualte the total dosage. Of course, astronauts were very educated, some of them stating that they have visited the moon, but not being sure if they went as far as van Allen belts. Mass negligence?
And I already told you I don`t resort to sock puppetting. That would fit more for a person voting for a Romney or Obama:))))


Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: DataCable on June 17, 2012, 03:16:12 PM
There are no high quality videos of lunar dust closeup being kicked up by astronauts.
I referred to regolith kicked up by the LRV wheels, not by astronauts.  Please explain, or better, demonstrate, how this can be done in an atmosphere without producing a persistent cloud of fine particles suspended in the air.

Quote
What we need to do is to check more videos if the sand doesn`t manage to fall faster down to the ground than the astronaut hanging on wires.
To conduct such a comparison, you would first have to present verifiable footage of astronauts hanging on wires.

Quote
Ok, I will give you a blue-ray dvd...
Is that like a Beta VHS videocassette?  There is no such thing as a Blu-Ray DVD, those are two completely different media formats.


It is not really a rocket science to imagine that  to elimate dust, one could wet them or sift them for coarser grains.
Sifting can guarantee that only particles finer than the filter size will pass through the filter.  Sifting cannot guarantee that all particles finer than the filter size will pass through the filter, or prevent coarse particles from breaking down into finer particles.

Quote
And I believe Van Allen was threatened to either withdraw or be silent about his radiation discoveries, although I am no privy to provide proof of such an occurence.
Sure worked, didn't it?

Quote
they didn`t care to read or report or inquire about [...] the battery meters on their lunar rover
Wrong.

Quote
I don`t believe if they tried to hide  behind in a shadow of a large boulder, having only black sky and 7% albedo from the lunar surface, that they wouldn`t be able to film or photograph stars.
They did photograph stars, on Apollo 16 with an ultraviolet camera.

Quote
At least they would be able to see Jupiter or Venus.
Alan Shepard possibly saw and definitely photographed Venus on Apollo 14... nine times. </Principal_Rooney>  I already bitchslapped another hoax proponent into a ragequit from the old forum with that little discovery.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 17, 2012, 03:22:07 PM
Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there, and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there.

To validate they were there?!  They should add extra time, effort and equipment to satisfy cranks who believed they faked it?!  And then what - I know, you's come up with some other reason to doubt them.

By the way, have you seen these images?  http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html


Quote
And I edit my posts to get rid of some typos, but I still get many. Don`t you bother about that.

You are lying.  You added a huge paragraph to one post after getting several replies, as well as removed/changed complete sentences.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Chew on June 17, 2012, 03:23:33 PM
If the cameras could expose astronauts standing in complete shadow even being lit from the back by the sun, nothing would stop them from phtographing stars being inside a shadow.

Expect the shutter speed, of course. What was it? This is a direct question requiring an answer per the forum rules: what was the shutter speed used by the astronauts on the moon?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 17, 2012, 03:29:49 PM
`Then learn something about basic photography. They were not equipped to take pictures of the stars, and there is no reason they would be.`

 Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there, and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there.

If you were shown a photo from the moon with Venus visible in it, would you accept that the Apollo program was real?  What about the photos from the moon that show stars?  Why do you dismiss these? Or do you not know about them?

Also, for the sake of clarity and politeness to others, please learn to use the quote function.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 17, 2012, 03:36:18 PM
coarse sand  doesn`t have that much of dust . And simply by walking over it you wouldn`t dustify or grind to dust anything, at least no to noticeable amount.

And what about the act of laying it down on the set, and all the set dressing that goes on over the top of it? There is NO WAY to avoid fine dust being generated.

Quote
Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there, and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there.

How does a picture of the stars, that would look no different from one taken on Earth, validate their position as being on the moon?

Oh, and with regards to Venus, did you know that Venus IS in some of the Apollo 14 pictures, and it WAs exactly where it was expected to be?

I don't believe you when you say it would 'validate' it at all. As soon as we point out that things are where they are supposed to be, you or others will simply say that since we know where the stars are supposed to appear it would be a simple matter to fake the starscape.

Quote
If the cameras could expose astronauts standing in complete shadow even being lit from the back by the sun, nothing would stop them from phtographing stars being inside a shadow.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The astronaut is lit by back-scattered light from the surface, and the camera still has to expose the surface correctly. Star photography takes whole seconds, and they did not have the ability to do it.

Quote
Having trained for some time in design and sketching, I guess I know a thing or two about photography or shadows.

How does 'design and sketching' in any way qualify you to discuss photography and its limitations?

Quote
About the trained test pilots, who were not afraid because of their experience.  Well, the ejection seats and a parachute makes a huge difference in how brave a man can be.

But they still fail, or the aircraft can fail without the time to activate the ejection system. Many test pilots and astronauts died when their planes crashed.

Quote
And I edit my posts to get rid of some typos, but I still get many. Don`t you bother about that.

You sir, are a LIAR. Adding whole paragraphs of text to your reply after some times is NOT 'correcting typos'.

Quote
Luke, Jarrah chose the lowest possible radiation levels to calcualte the total dosage.

But the point is that Jarrah does not know HOW to calculate the dosage.

Quote
Of course, astronauts were very educated, some of them stating that they have visited the moon, but not being sure if they went as far as van Allen belts. Mass negligence?

Or the fact that after forty years the memory of a man unexpectedly being asked the technical details might just not be perfect. Alan Bean's job was to fly the spacecraft, not worry about the van Allen belts. That bit was dealt with by the technicians and ground crew who designed the trajectory.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 17, 2012, 03:38:53 PM
Jason, coarse sand  doesn`t have that much of dust . And simply by walking over it you wouldn`t dustify or grind to dust anything, at least no to noticeable amount.
`Then learn something about basic photography. They were not equipped to take pictures of the stars, and there is no reason they would be.` Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there, and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there. If the cameras could expose astronauts standing in complete shadow even being lit from the back by the sun, nothing would stop them from phtographing stars being inside a shadow.  Having trained for some time in design and sketching, I guess I know a thing or two about photography or shadows. It would be funny if they could turn the cameras all around and up pointing to the sky.
About the trained test pilots, who were not afraid because of their experience.  Well, the ejection seats and a parachute makes a huge difference in how brave a man can be.
And I edit my posts to get rid of some typos, but I still get many. Don`t you bother about that.


Lunar Orbit. Your picture of a boot is a bit funny, . Firstly have you seen many people with such clumps after having walked near the sea, or close to the waterline of a sandy beach? You do realize, the wetter the sand the more shallow the imprint will be? When I was in Canada, I lived in Ottawa for 4 months, more specifically in suburbs of Ottawa, Place`d Orleans. I went to the local river for swimming. Quiet often actually. The place was called Petrie Island or beach  if I recall  it correctly. I was surprised that no matter how strong the wind was , the sand was not blown around and seemed quiet solid.  I asked the lifeguard and he told me they use a kind of specific glue they spray over the sand to make it cling together. At the same time I could dig it , but there would be no dust, but it seemed almost as if humid or wet.Don`t you think your boot pic is a notch exaggerated.
As to my identity. I can speak perfect Latvian and write as well, I am coherent in Russian, slightly aware of German. You can check me that way. We can talk through skype, as my registration place would indicate year registered( many years ago)  and it would be very unlikely  that I had been using a proxy server to register a secret skype account in Latvia  many years ago. Yes, you could send me a postcard, but that would take 2 weeks to get here, and about 2 weeks to get back. That is how our post works. Or I could simply make a picture of myself in my town with a paper that would say your name. I could stand next to a recognisable feature.
Luke, Jarrah chose the lowest possible radiation levels to calcualte the total dosage. Of course, astronauts were very educated, some of them stating that they have visited the moon, but not being sure if they went as far as van Allen belts. Mass negligence?
And I already told you I don`t resort to sock puppetting. That would fit more for a person voting for a Romney or Obama:))))




I thought I'd quote the whole thing to protect us against the DakDak play.

You need to show your working.  How did you arrive at the conclusion that if object in shadow could be exposed correctly, so could stars.  Because that certainly doesn't agree with my experience.

Capturing the stars is irrelevant because they look no different on the Moon than they do on Earth, so you could just claim the photo was taken at night in the Nevada Desert/Shepperton riverfront.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: DataCable on June 17, 2012, 03:45:50 PM
Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there
You must post photos of Venus and Jupiter to prove that you are actually in Latvia.

Quote
and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there.
Since you brought it up, it was the afformentioned bitchslapped hoax proponent's posting of Venus and Earth's relative positions in the lunar sky from unspecified planetarium software, supposedly set for the time of Apollo 14's stay (the screencaps were insanely low-res) which allowed me to find Venus in Shepard's photos (http://photos.imageevent.com/datacable/apollo/A14_Earth-Venus.gif).

Quote
If the cameras could expose astronauts standing in complete shadow even being lit from the back by the sun, nothing would stop them from phtographing stars being inside a shadow.
What is the minimum exposure time required to image Sirius on Ektachrome EF film at f/2.8?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 17, 2012, 03:50:43 PM
Jarrah chose the lowest possible radiation levels to calculate the total dosage.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I'll recap the main points:

Calculating such doses is an academic exercise that only informs engineering parameters for provision of design tolerance. You cannot perform exact calculations in the way that Jarrah claims. Certainly not in a matter of fact way by multiplying two numbers. No one can calculate exact doses from the data, yet Jarrah claims to do so as a matter of course. His calculations are flawed.

Jarrah applies radiation exposures determined from shock generated halo-CME  SPEs, and applies this value to the duration of H-alpha prominences. These two solar events are hugely different. Once takes place in the solar corona region and is due to magnetic reconnection in localised regions. One takes places in the solar plasma once it has been ejected from the sun following large scale reordering of the coronal magnetic field. His calculations are flawed.

Jarrah does not account for energy loss in the material, so makes no attempt to perform an integrated dose calculation that accounts for the CM materials. His calculations are flawed.

Now, care to address these three points, and offer a rebuttal why his calculations aren't flawed, and why I am wrong.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 17, 2012, 03:53:24 PM
Lunar Orbit. Your picture of a boot is a bit funny, . Firstly have you seen many people with such clumps after having walked near the sea, or close to the waterline of a sandy beach? You do realize, the wetter the sand the more shallow the imprint will be?

Uh, no.  No, that's not how it works.  The wetter sand is (AKA, mud), the deeper you'll sink in and the deeper the impression you make.  Furthermore, mud would not act the way it did when the LRV drove over it, as seen in the previous video, because it would none fall back down as relatively fine particles.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 17, 2012, 04:20:52 PM
For someone who is "speaking for himself" you seem to have memorized a lot of the standard playbook!

Jason, coarse sand  doesn`t have that much of dust . And simply by walking over it you wouldn`t dustify or grind to dust anything, at least no to noticeable amount.

Regardless of that, they aren't walking on coarse sand.  The pictures clearly show fine particulates.


Oh, there is a big reason- to validate that they were actually there, and that the positions of venus and jupiter would match the time they claimed to have been there. If the cameras could expose astronauts standing in complete shadow even being lit from the back by the sun, nothing would stop them from phtographing stars being inside a shadow.  Having trained for some time in design and sketching, I guess I know a thing or two about photography or shadows. It would be funny if they could turn the cameras all around and up pointing to the sky.

Any star or planet positions would also be the same for Earth, or for Earthly orbit.  You prove nothing with those.  Also, if the position of, say, Venus can be accurately determined, then it can also be determined by a group of filmmakers and a bright light or post effect stuck in the right spot.

The astronauts were never in complete shadow.  You have background in photography from what?  Perhaps you are being misled by your experience in 3d rendering where interobject reflectivity is usually treated as a second-pass effect; in many render packages, if you don't invoke it implicitly, then ray-traced shadows can be harsh indeed.  The lunar environment, however, is filled with material that reflects light.

Also, regardless of whether it would be possible to find an exposure setting that would pick up the stars, it is NOT possible to fit both stars and astronauts and equipment within the same dynamic range.  If you know any photography at all then you will find this ludicrously easy to calculate.

About the trained test pilots, who were not afraid because of their experience.  Well, the ejection seats and a parachute makes a huge difference in how brave a man can be.

Read up on career life expectancy for test pilots.

And I edit my posts to get rid of some typos, but I still get many. Don`t you bother about that.

You seem to be doing more than that.


Lunar Orbit. Your picture of a boot is a bit funny, . Firstly have you seen many people with such clumps after having walked near the sea, or close to the waterline of a sandy beach? You do realize, the wetter the sand the more shallow the imprint will be? When I was in Canada, I lived in Ottawa for 4 months, more specifically in suburbs of Ottawa, Place`d Orleans. I went to the local river for swimming. Quiet often actually. The place was called Petrie Island or beach  if I recall  it correctly. I was surprised that no matter how strong the wind was , the sand was not blown around and seemed quiet solid.  I asked the lifeguard and he told me they use a kind of specific glue they spray over the sand to make it cling together. At the same time I could dig it , but there would be no dust, but it seemed almost as if humid or wet.Don`t you think your boot pic is a notch exaggerated.
As to my identity. I can speak perfect Latvian and write as well, I am coherent in Russian, slightly aware of German. You can check me that way. We can talk through skype, as my registration place would indicate year registered( many years ago)  and it would be very unlikely  that I had been using a proxy server to register a secret skype account in Latvia  many years ago. Yes, you could send me a postcard, but that would take 2 weeks to get here, and about 2 weeks to get back. That is how our post works. Or I could simply make a picture of myself in my town with a paper that would say your name. I could stand next to a recognisable feature.

The photographic and video record does not show wet sand.  It is clearly fine dust, it is clearly kicked up and scattered in large amounts.  It clearly stays CLEAR -- there is no suspended matter.


Luke, Jarrah chose the lowest possible radiation levels to calcualte the total dosage. Of course, astronauts were very educated, some of them stating that they have visited the moon, but not being sure if they went as far as van Allen belts. Mass negligence?
And I already told you I don`t resort to sock puppetting. That would fit more for a person voting for a Romney or Obama:))))

More politics, more games.

Why don't you go to ATS?  I don't think this board is suited for you.

At LEAST, you could cease with the Gish Gallop!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: scooter on June 17, 2012, 04:42:48 PM
advancedboy,

Something you need to know here...some of the posters here are professionally involved in spaceflight, satellite/booster design and manufacturing, mission design and space system engineering and operations in general. Others of us have learned through related education, and general curiosity and study. It's interesting to us.

You use Jarrah as your authority, yet dismiss input by real professionals in the business, considering them somehow biased. Jarrah doesn't study spaceflight or space radiation, he simply pores over magazines and books until he finds something which, to him, presents a show stopper to manned flights to the Moon. He doesn't bother with the details, nor does be bother to check with the source of the material he takes out of context. And he had his head handed to him by Jay over at the IMDB debate...Jay had to teach him the basics of the subject of space radiation, which was rather embarrassing for JW...he just quit the forum.

I wish you would be as skeptical of the hoax claims as you are about the Apollo evidence...you would find the sources of the hoax data severely lacking in expertise in some very complex subjects. Bottom line...you need to do some homework on the subject you so easily dismiss.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 17, 2012, 05:20:02 PM
advancedboy,
He doesn't bother with the details, nor does be bother to check with the source of the material he takes out of context. And he had his head handed to him by Jay over at the IMDB debate...Jay had to teach him the basics of the subject of space radiation, which was rather embarrassing for JW...he just quit the forum.

For the record, here is the full exchange (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/thread/133905495). As Jay points out himself (in another thread if I recall), others asked many searching questions, and Jarrah hardly responded. It was another example of his obsession with Jay. Jay did most of the damage though, that much is true. Watching Jarrah change the subject to Apollo 1 would have been hilarious except for the fact he was making that hideous accusation of murder by NASA.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: PetersCreek on June 17, 2012, 09:47:20 PM
I don`t see what could have stopped NASA from either using wet sand or adding coagulants.

Wet sand (and, finer particulates, especially) doesn't behave as seen in the video and photographic record.  See this photo of Gene Cernan (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=246&imageID=AS17-134-20386) with obviously fine material clinging to his suit, up to his thighs.  I can see no evidence that it was wet at any time...none of the caking and/or smearing typical of wet material.  If moisture or coagulants were used to prevent it from billowing, as you suggest, then he would have had to pretty much roll in it to get it on his upper legs.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: twik on June 17, 2012, 10:11:13 PM
I always wonder if HBs in this kind of situation imagine themselves as Juror 2 from 12 Angry Men?  That they "just ask simple questions" bit by bit, but by the end of the movie they find they've convinced the whole jury that there was a conspiracy?  Then they naturally get frustrated when it doesn't work out that way, especially when they get confronted by obstacle after obstacle in actual evidence.

Absolutely. That's why the new ones so often melt down when people don't gasp "You're RIGHT! Why didn't I see it, I was a fool!"
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: twik on June 17, 2012, 10:19:13 PM
As some one who has spent quite some time on beaches, I'm, er, dubious that they spray "some sort of glue" on beaches near Ottawa to prevent sand from blowing. What on earth would be the point? And how would they get it past environmental authorities? I have, however, seen sand that has naturally formed a crust, which would reduce blowing of dust, but only until someone walked over it and revealed the loose sand underneath.

And coarse sand is, actually, quite dusty.

I suspect someone was telling advancedboy a tall tale, that they never suspected he would be gullible enough to believe. I think this is quite telling that he believed a nonsense story (or misunderstood what he was told) without questioning whether it was logical or not.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Chew on June 17, 2012, 10:20:23 PM
Juror 2? John Fielder? Who did the voice of Piglet in The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tedward on June 17, 2012, 11:27:29 PM
I love the idea of glue on sand. I now have visions of tankers of a well known sticky fluid heading for the beaches to stop coastal erosion and a sign saying "top secret Moon mission being filmed. Keep orf" along side "Nudists only".
Title: Re: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 18, 2012, 01:58:11 AM
I always wonder if HBs in this kind of situation imagine themselves as Juror 2 from 12 Angry Men?  That they "just ask simple questions" bit by bit, but by the end of the movie they find they've convinced the whole jury that there was a conspiracy?  Then they naturally get frustrated when it doesn't work out that way, especially when they get confronted by obstacle after obstacle in actual evidence.

Absolutely. That's why the new ones so often melt down when people don't gasp "You're RIGHT! Why didn't I see it, I was a fool!"

Not to mention any names beginning with DakDak.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 18, 2012, 02:29:39 AM
1. Relevance of stars  in photography. If the moon missions were real, they wouldn`t bother about stars, the stars would be simply all over the pictures. I mean they wouldn`t bother about their location, because they would be where they had to be. The problem arrives when they fake the moonlanding. then the whole issue changes. I didn`t say that it is impossible to fake starfield. It simply increases expenditures  and increases complexity. The problem is that you can`t pretend to fly to the moon on monday, and present starfield that was photographed a month ago, because position of the sun in the photographs and the consequent shadows would change as well. And location of planets as well. Because the earth is not rotating in a single location but travelling in space, the starfield changes as well. There are many videos, that show how NASA has been tampering with paint brush. I will try to find them.
2. Photographing stars. One could assume that the surface albedo is enough to enlighten the spacecraft and astronauts even if the sun is right behind them. What is strange that the same surface is unable to light up rocks on the shadow side and most of them look to be in complete darkness. You could assume that astronauts are in white color and is the reason. Well, the lunar lander is not all white. You could assume that it is the surface albedo that allows the light to bounce back on the astronauts. Well, the lunar lander is much higher off the ground, and even darker parts are nicely lit. That is a bit suspicious. Another issue, the lower the light that illuminates the object is, the less light will bounce back from the surface, implying less exposure of the shadowed side. many pictures of Apollo have the sun pretty low at the horizon, yet the shadow side of the astronauts are nicely lit, while shadow of the rocks leave them in complete blackness.
 Here is a video of Petrie island. You can get there by car or bus as well, as it is some 5 miles away from Place D`orleans. look at the sand. Not a hint of it being on the pavement. You think somebody is sweeping the area everyday? No, it is the chemicals they have added to the sand. There are many here from Canada s well, I suppose, you could figure out this one pretty easily. Ain`t a conspiracy here.

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 18, 2012, 02:48:42 AM
I don`t know of course, it could have been that the lifeguard had lied to me, but it kinda sounds silly to lie about such an insiginificant matter. It could have been, that the whole beach area was sifted for coarser sand, although I didn`t feel it to be coars, it was simply moist  or humid by touch. here is another vid of this place. And believe me it is not rain, because I was there many times, and the sand is constantly in this shape. When digging deeper in the sand it stll has the same pattern, there is no dry sand underneath, neither there is sand that would be wet, as in full with water.
here is the vid--

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 18, 2012, 03:06:12 AM
Here is a video of NASA tampering with pictures. I would ask you to ignore the whole video, as it  is not convincing at all, except, please stop at 10:11 and tell me what is that you see there?

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: VincentMcConnell on June 18, 2012, 03:25:08 AM
LOL. 10:11 was part of a video made by an individual formerly known as "NASAvsPETE". He is a proven troll, liar, schizophrenic, psychotic and unintelligent person who has no valid input on anything short of talking to himself...
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Count Zero on June 18, 2012, 03:28:12 AM
Quote
2. Photographing stars.

Nothing you say after this has anything to do with photographing stars.

Quote
One could assume that the surface albedo is enough to enlighten the spacecraft and astronauts even if the sun is right behind them.

Correct.  Also note that the lunar regolith has retroreflective properties, which makes it reflect more light back towards its source than would otherwise be expected based on albedo alone.  This is why a full-moon is several times brighter than a half-moon, instead of just twice as bright.

Quote
What is strange that the same surface is unable to light up rocks on the shadow side and most of them look to be in complete darkness. You could assume that astronauts are in white color and is the reason.

Correct, but it's hardly "strange".  It is to be expected, if you do the math:

Albedo of surface (including rocks):  ~7%
Albedo of astronaut's spacesuit:  ~80%

Sunlight:  100%
Sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface, then off the spacesuit:  .07 x .8 = .056 or 5.6%
Sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface, then off a rock the same size as the astronaut:  .07 x .07 = .0049 or 0.49%

Thus the astronaut in shadow is going to be more than 10 times brighter than a rock the same size.

Quote
Well, the lunar lander is not all white. You could assume that it is the surface albedo that allows the light to bounce back on the astronauts. Well, the lunar lander is much higher off the ground, and even darker parts are nicely lit. That is a bit suspicious.

No it's not.  This is a photo of the LM's shadow taken from up in one of the windows:

(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/browse/AS11/39/5763.jpg)

Note the brightness around the top from the retroreflection mentioned earlier.

Now here is the same shadow (part of it, actually - the whole thing wouldn't fit in one frame) taken from ground-level near one of the LM's footpads:

(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/browse/AS11/40/5854.jpg)

For the lander or any other object facing away from the sun, there's going to be less reflected light on its lower portion because its shadow blocks more light than it does for the higher portions.

Last word on the subject of lighting:  The solar flux at 1AU from the sun is ~1,400 watts per square meter.  If we assume an albedo of 7% for the moon's surface, then the reflected light from that surface will be

1,400 x 0.07 = 98 watts per square meter.

In other words, the light reflecting from the lunar surface is roughly equivalent to a 100 watt lightbulb on every visible square meter of surface.  That is plenty for photographing in the shadows, and enough to make the stars invisible for someone who's not looking for them (because he's - you know - studying the moon).
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Abaddon on June 18, 2012, 03:38:18 AM
Here is a video of NASA tampering with pictures. I would ask you to ignore the whole video, as it  is not convincing at all, except, please stop at 10:11 and tell me what is that you see there?



Start with the usual inept photoshop slider manipulation to highlight jpeg compression artifacts in the black sky malarkey.

ROFL, individual pixelation/compression artifacts on the slope of a mountain are really a staircase.

After 3.5 minutes of that garbage, I had to stop.

Too funny.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 18, 2012, 03:40:41 AM
1. Relevance of stars  in photography. If the moon missions were real, they wouldn`t bother about stars, the stars would be simply all over the pictures.

What are you talking about? The stars will not show up on the pictures because they are too faint to do so without long exposures that would wash out the foreground.

Quote
The problem is that you can`t pretend to fly to the moon on monday, and present starfield that was photographed a month ago, because position of the sun in the photographs and the consequent shadows would change as well.

Who said anything about using a photographed starfield? If a reasonably competent astronomer could tell if stars were in the wrong positions, a reasonably competent astronomer could work out the correct position and make a starfield that is correct for any given date. We have been able to do this for centuries now.

Quote
What is strange that the same surface is unable to light up rocks on the shadow side and most of them look to be in complete darkness. You could assume that astronauts are in white color and is the reason.

Yes, you could, and it is.

Quote
Well, the lunar lander is not all white. You could assume that it is the surface albedo that allows the light to bounce back on the astronauts. Well, the lunar lander is much higher off the ground, and even darker parts are nicely lit.

The lighting on the LM is quite consistent with being on a retroreflective surface such as the lunar regolith.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 18, 2012, 03:42:22 AM
Here is a video of NASA tampering with pictures. I would ask you to ignore the whole video, as it  is not convincing at all, except, please stop at 10:11 and tell me what is that you see there?

I see JPEG compression artifacts, as I would expect to. Digital photo manipulation by playing with photoshop settings does not equate to serious photographic analysis. Now if he were to perform a similar experiment using the original film that the picture was captured on and not a multi-generation digital copy of a copy of a copy compressed for online presentation, he might have a case...
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 18, 2012, 03:45:03 AM
1. Relevance of stars  in photography. If the moon missions were real, they wouldn`t bother about stars, the stars would be simply all over the pictures.

Non-responsive.

You have had the reason why it is impossible to include lunar surface activities and a starfield in the same photograph.  You have been directly questioned as to whether you understand these reasons.  You have been challenged to provide any refutation, any explanation as to why you believe the impossible is actually possible.

No.  You don't get to simply waltz over the question, ignore all the responses you have been given, and proceed with some other argument based on that foundation of bent soda straws.

I mean they wouldn`t bother about their location, because they would be where they had to be. The problem arrives when they fake the moonlanding. then the whole issue changes. I didn`t say that it is impossible to fake starfield. It simply increases expenditures  and increases complexity. The problem is that you can`t pretend to fly to the moon on monday, and present starfield that was photographed a month ago, because position of the sun in the photographs and the consequent shadows would change as well. And location of planets as well. Because the earth is not rotating in a single location but travelling in space, the starfield changes as well. There are many videos, that show how NASA has been tampering with paint brush. I will try to find them.

Oh, really?  I am going to make a direct demand of my own.  Show me you understand the definition and derivation of the term "parsec."  For extra points, please explain what fraction of the field of view of the Hasselblad images this stellar motion would entail.


2. Photographing stars. One could assume that the surface albedo is enough to enlighten the spacecraft and astronauts even if the sun is right behind them. What is strange that the same surface is unable to light up rocks on the shadow side and most of them look to be in complete darkness. You could assume that astronauts are in white color and is the reason. Well, the lunar lander is not all white. You could assume that it is the surface albedo that allows the light to bounce back on the astronauts. Well, the lunar lander is much higher off the ground, and even darker parts are nicely lit. That is a bit suspicious. Another issue, the lower the light that illuminates the object is, the less light will bounce back from the surface, implying less exposure of the shadowed side. many pictures of Apollo have the sun pretty low at the horizon, yet the shadow side of the astronauts are nicely lit, while shadow of the rocks leave them in complete blackness.

Again with the Gish Gallop.  Again I respectfully suggest you stick to ONE subject until you can show you understand it.

There are three factors you haven't considered.   One is that the lunar surface is a dark gray, quite a bit darker than any painted portion of the LM.  Two is that objects like the LM stick up above the surface, and thus have a view angle to more lit ground.  A rock near the ground can "see" mostly its own shadow.  You can see this quite clearly on something like the famous "man on the moon" picture from Apollo 11; the legs are much darker than the rest of the body, and it isn't just the lunar dust that is causing that.  Three is that parts of the LM are not "lit," per se.  Which is to say; they are coated in reflective materials.  You aren't seeing diffuse reflection of the light that is falling on them; you are seeing what the mirror sees.  Which depending on the angle of the bit of foil in question, is usually black sky, or lit surface.



Here is a video of Petrie island. You can get there by car or bus as well, as it is some 5 miles away from Place D`orleans. look at the sand. Not a hint of it being on the pavement. You think somebody is sweeping the area everyday? No, it is the chemicals they have added to the sand. There are many here from Canada s well, I suppose, you could figure out this one pretty easily. Ain`t a conspiracy here.

Whatever.  You may not be the person you are looking a lot like, so take this as a friendly word -- this forum has a history, and part of that history was an extremely lengthy and weary discussion of magic sand.  No-one wants to go there again.  Trust me on this.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ChrLz on June 18, 2012, 04:23:11 AM
A couple of small observations (yes, just sniping from the shadows.. but I think someone's gotta say it..).

1. Why are posters complaining about the Gish Gallop and then happily jumping onto every new topic advancedboy introduces, despite the fact that he hasn't acknowledged one of his errors to date?  (If he has, I apologise for missing it amongst the drivel he has posted so far.)

2. I'd just like to congratulate advancedboy on his remarkable grammatical improvement in just the space of a few days.  It's interesting - this seems to be quite common among Apollo-denial enthusiasts, like fattydash/dastardly and decisively (at ATS), who slowly transmogrify from people who need their sisters and best friend Timmy to help, into misinformation trolls specialists who nevertheless seem to be quite adept, at least literarily...

3. In relation to 1, may I suggest that advancedboy is made to commit to his very best evidence, and then that topic is comprehensively covered and conceded as appropriate BEFORE allowing the next twenty distractions? 

Wasn't the intent of his initial gambit about weak arguments obvious?  And here he is, playing all those weak arguments out simultaneously..   Sheeesh.

.. And I'd like to see that postcard go to Latvia...
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: raven on June 18, 2012, 04:24:37 AM
Apollo did (http://www3.telus.net/summa/faruv/) take (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-98-13311.html) pictures of stars, but only when using long exposures. The Far UV pictures in particular have been used to show that the astronauts were indeed on the moon.


Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 18, 2012, 04:25:37 AM
1. Relevance of stars  in photography. If the moon missions were real, they wouldn`t bother about stars, the stars would be simply all over the pictures.
You seem to have completely missed the points made about exposure times. Sol, our own sun, has a visual magnitude of -26.74. Sirius A, the next brightest star in our sky (i.e., the brightest star in the night sky) has a magnitude of -1.47. More positive stellar magnitudes correspond to dimmer stars, with 5 stellar magnitudes corresponding to a brightness ratio of 100:1. Each decrease of -1 in magnitude is therefore an increase in brightness of 1001/5 = 2.512:1. The ratio of the brightness of Sol to Sirius is therefore

= (1001/5)-1.47 - (-26.74)
= 12.82 x 109.

That is, our sun is almost 13 billion times brighter than Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky. Do you seriously think that Sirius, to say nothing of the many other stars that are considerably dimmer, should "simply be all over the pictures" exposed for a sunlit lunar scene?

Yet you're wrong even in your assumption that Apollo returned no star pictures from the lunar surface. Though there are no stars in the hand-held Hasselblad pictures, nor should there be any, Apollo 16 set up a far ultraviolet telescope in the shadow of the lunar module. Why UV? The earth's atmosphere is opaque to far UV so astronomy in this spectral range can only be done in space. Using time exposures of tens of minutes, far longer than the 1/125 or 1/250 sec exposures of the astronauts' own Hasselblad cameras, this telescopic camera took 178 pictures of various stars, nebulae, the Large Magellanic Cloud (one of the mini-galaxies neighboring our Milky Way galaxy), and the earth surrounded by its own ultraviolet glow.

Although the earth remains nearly motionionless in the lunar sky (it actually librates or "wobbles" a few degrees over the month), the moon nonetheless rotates once per month so the star field does move slowly across the lunar sky. And lo and behold, the earth in these UV pictures is surrounded by a set of stars that happen to be in exactly the right places for their times and location.

I now eagerly await your attempts to move the goalposts by claiming that these pictures could have been faked. That would have been impossible for the simple reason that this was the first far-UV camera flown in space. Unlike visible-light stars, NASA simply lacked the information it would have needed to fake lunar UV pictures at that time. (These stars have since been verified by other UV cameras flying on subsequent robotic missions from several countries.)  In other words, these UV pictures are much better proof of an actual lunar landing than any hypothetical visible-light star pictures, ones you knew did not exist and therefore thought safe to pretend you would have accepted as proof.

Quote
What is strange that the same surface is unable to light up rocks on the shadow side and most of them look to be in complete darkness. You could assume that astronauts are in white color and is the reason. Well, the lunar lander is not all white. You could assume that it is the surface albedo that allows the light to bounce back on the astronauts. Well, the lunar lander is much higher off the ground, and even darker parts are nicely lit. That is a bit suspicious.
Not only is this not suspicious, it is exactly what should happen. The shadowed side of a tall object like the LM is brighter than the shadowed side of a small rock because the LM is exposed to far more sunlit surface area than the rock.

Further, the lunar surface is not a simple diffuse scatterer. It returns much more light toward the source than other directions. This is known as the "opposition effect", and it's the reason the full moon is something like ten times as bright as a half moon, not twice. The sun was low in the east during every Apollo landing, so the west side of the LM, facing down-sun, was lit especially well by sunlight preferentially scattered back toward it.

This same optical property of the lunar surface is responsible for the "heiligenschein", a familiar phenomenon in Apollo photographs in which the shadow of the astronaut taking a picture is surrounded by a bright halo.

Why does the heiligenschein occur? Because the lunar surface is extremely rough and fine at small scales due to constant bombardment by hypervelocity micrometeoroids. Among other things, it also completely rules out the notion that the surface actually consisted of "coarse wet beach sand" because it simply doesn't behave like it.


Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 18, 2012, 04:41:26 AM
1. Relevance of stars  in photography. If the moon missions were real, they wouldn`t bother about stars, the stars would be simply all over the pictures.

Once again I'll ask you; do you ever go outside and look at the sky? 

Have you ever stood under a street light, looked at the stars and noticed how few you could see?  Have you ever been in a football game at night and looked at the sky?  It is mostly or entirely black.  Now to extend this further, take a film camera to a football game and take a picture of the crowd and the sky.  If the crowd portion is properly exposed, the sky will be black.  It is a simple experiment.  Even a properly exposed photo of a person under a street light would not show stars.  And remember, the lunar photos were shot in full daylight. 

Have you ever gone into the country and tried to photograph stars?  You can't do it with a hand held camera because you can't hold it still for long enough.  For someone who claims to be interested in industrial design and efficiency, it would seem to be the least you could do before making wild claims. 

Your posts are becoming ever more desperate, take a look at the world around you and learn something about nature, it will ease your discomfort.

Finally, have you considered the photographs of stars that were taken?  How do these fit into your rationale for a hoax. 
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 18, 2012, 05:06:34 AM
1. Why are posters complaining about the Gish Gallop and then happily jumping onto every new topic advancedboy introduces, despite the fact that he hasn't acknowledged one of his errors to date?

Because it highlights his tactics while avoiding the impression that he is asking unanswerable questions or has something we can't or won't address.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 18, 2012, 05:40:47 AM
In other words, the light reflecting from the lunar surface is roughly equivalent to a 100 watt lightbulb on every visible square meter of surface.
It's actually quite a bit more than a 100 watt light bulb because the color temperature of the sun (5800 K) is much hotter than the temperature of the tungsten filament in a lightbulb (2000-3000 K, depending on type). Nearly all of the power into the filament still comes out as electromagnetic radiation, but because of the lower temperature a far greater fraction comes out in the infrared where you can't see it (but it still heats the room).

So a 100W light bulb (1750 lumens) is subjectively nowhere near as bright as 100W of sunlight (9300 lumens).

The ideal incandescent light bulb would have a filament temperature of about 6600 K, a little hotter than the sun where it would produce 95 lumens/W. Much of it would still be invisible IR or UV but a 100W bulb at that temperature would then be subjectively slightly brighter than 100W of sunlight. No known filament material can work at this temperature.


Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Count Zero on June 18, 2012, 05:49:48 AM
Good point.  Reminds me of my dad's 8mm movies when, for whatever reason wouldn't have the correct filter on the camera to correct for the light source.  Shooting with indoor film outside would look too blue and washed-out.  Shooting with outdoor film inside would be way too orange (not to mention dark).
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 18, 2012, 05:59:58 AM
Hey, Advancedboy, how come you didn't mention you got slapped down by a mod and banned on the Secret Projects forum for repeatedly breaking rules regarding moon landing denial?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 18, 2012, 09:24:34 AM
Couldn`t you simultaneously add even more questions?  How do you expect me to answer all of them? Or at least deal with them? I added the vid specifically to address the 10 minute and 11 second mark. And I mean specifically the rectangle anomaly in that picture. Nothing else, I didn`t need to know how bad or schizofrenic he is, or how you got tired after watching 3 minutes of the video.  Just address the 10;11 mark, address the rectangle and colour dissonance along its lines. Simple as that. Don`t call people names behind their back. If you want address hunchbacked, invite him here, or let him reason his refusal.
Emma, yes, I was banned for a week or two from that forum. I was never rude, or accusing anyone personally, but I wanted to talk the moonhoax, and i even couldn`t really start the discussion, when they banned me. I am not denying, but would you expect me to talk about it here on my own initiative? If you were really educated people, or people dealing with science, you would ask me how did I design that helicopter, or what ideas did I put there, what innovations did I plan, or what else I have designed. I f you were really scientists, and engineers, i would gladly see what have you built with your own hands. And you could have asked me the same questions. Where are you space , and aviation engineers? come out, i will gladly discuss airframes anf future aircraft. Why don`t you use a chance?
And you know for yourself that there are atronauts who have talked about how beatiful the stars were from space, and you know that this issue has been addressed by jarrah White and Unforgiven ( or similar, can`t remeber his name precisely).
You know , how NASA has added fire to the conspiracy by declaring no flyby zones, how they have postponed and postponed the return to the moon, joggling from `irrelevant-been there done that, to let`s do it in 2050.
isn`t it amazing that those truly amazing science people were not even interested in having superb star pictures taken on the far side of the moon, . While their 3rd guy was waiting in capsule in lunar orbit, noone of the 2 astronauts was even interested in trying to film or photograph it up there. Want the paper work from Boeing about lunar rover, nope, sorry, we flushed it down the toilet. it is NASA itself that curbs the conspiracy, . Adding more and more fuel to the fire. Where is Baron`s report, even if he was killed by an alien, what happened to NASA`s interest about the report of feasibility of the project .
Talking about the stars I dont mean that by any conditions they could photograph stars, I mean they had a lot of chances  to adopt different lenses and exposure settings, and use very good circumstances, in shadows or behind huge boulders to make  really wonderful pictures. Personally I would really like to photograph satellites of jupiter in vacuum, had I been on the moon. I would be really interested in usinga FLIR camera as well. And I would definitely ask a question where is Westinghouse with their cutting edge videocameras today? What stopped them from accumulating expertize and  be a manufacturer of optics or consumer goods, domestically I mean?
I demand NASA for their future space exploration to ( Mars)use their almighty F-1 engine and continue improving it.  :)
 Now kinda interesting all of you attacking me simultaneously. I would like someone to take my side as well, or I am the only one here? Were you really gentlemen, you wouldn`t even allow me to be cornered by so many of you at the same time.
When addressing me, try to imagine , I am a human, not an indicted person in trial.
 
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 18, 2012, 09:28:16 AM
Now kinda interesting all of you attacking me simultaneously. I would like someone to take my side as well, or I am the only one here? Were you really gentlemen, you wouldn`t even allow me to be cornered by so many of you at the same time.
When addressing me, try to imagine , I am a human, not an indicted person in trial.

You came to a forum... belonging to a site... devoted to debunking the "moon hoax" belief... and you're surprised when you're challenged on your claims by the majority there?

No, I'm not going to artificially take your side, because the facts aren't on your side, and I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue in the first place either (and you tend to ignore challenges to that effect).

Besides which, what do you intend me to do, tell every other poster they can't make a post?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 18, 2012, 09:40:43 AM
Couldn`t you simultaneously add even more questions?  How do you expect me to answer all of them?

Pot, meet kettle.


Quote
Emma, yes, I was banned for a week or two from that forum. I was never rude, or accusing anyone personally, but I wanted to talk the moonhoax, and i even couldn`t really start the discussion, when they banned me.

So you admit you knowingly broke the rules of an online forum, and you don't care.


Quote
If you were really educated people, or people dealing with science, you would ask me how did I design that helicopter, or what ideas did I put there, what innovations did I plan, or what else I have designed.

None of that is anything to do with Apollo, so why would I bring it up here?


Quote
I f you were really scientists, and engineers, i would gladly see what have you built with your own hands.

Building things is but one science.  And I am afarid the old, "You're lying!  you're not REAL scientists" is a very old and familiar tactic.  I REFUSE to post my degree certificates here to prove I am a scientist because that would be a gross invasion of my privacy.


Quote
And you know for yourself that there are atronauts who have talked about how beatiful the stars were from space, and you know that this issue has been addressed by jarrah White and Unforgiven ( or similar, can`t remeber his name precisely).

Seeing stars from space =/= photographing them on the surface of the moon.

Didn't Playdor harp on about the same thing and refuse to accept the facts?


Quote
You know , how NASA has added fire to the conspiracy by declaring no flyby zones, how they have postponed and postponed the return to the moon, joggling from `irrelevant-been there done that, to let`s do it in 2050.
isn`t it amazing that those truly amazing science people were not even interested in having superb star pictures taken on the far side of the moon, . While their 3rd guy was waiting in capsule in lunar orbit, noone of the 2 astronauts was even interested in trying to film or photograph it up there. Want the paper work from Boeing about lunar rover, nope, sorry, we flushed it down the toilet. it is NASA itself that curbs the conspiracy, . Adding more and more fuel to the fire. Where is Baron`s report, even if he was killed by an alien, what happened to NASA`s interest about the report of feasibility of the project .
Talking about the stars I dont mean that by any conditions they could photograph stars, I mean they had a lot of chances  to adopt different lenses and exposure settings, and use very good circumstances, in shadows or behind huge boulders to make  really wonderful pictures. Personally I would really like to photograph satellites of jupiter in vacuum, had I been on the moon. I would be really interested in usinga FLIR camera as well. And I would definitely ask a question where is Westinghouse with their cutting edge videocameras today? What stopped them from accumulating expertize and  be a manufacturer of optics or consumer goods, domestically I mean?
I demand NASA for their future space exploration to ( Mars)use their almighty F-1 engine and continue improving it.  :)

Blah blah, rant rant.  NASA sux etc etc.


Quote
Now kinda interesting all of you attacking me simultaneously. I would like someone to take my side as well, or I am the only one here?

This is a board devoted to debunking HB's claims.  You came here as a HB and were immediately combative, aggressive and rude.


Quote
Were you really gentlemen

I am not a gentleman, nor have I claimed to be.  I am a lady.


Quote
you wouldn`t even allow me to be cornered by so many of you at the same time.

"Wah!  Mummy, the big boys all started on me just because I walked over and punched one on the nose!"


Quote
When addressing me, try to imagine , I am a human, not an indicted person in trial.

We are not dehumanising you when asking for proof of your claims.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 18, 2012, 09:42:09 AM
Couldn`t you simultaneously add even more questions?  How do you expect me to answer all of them?
Funny you should say that, since you were the one who began a Gish Gallop, tossing out dozens of unrelated points instead of sticking to one point at a time.

Reap what you sow.



Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 18, 2012, 09:56:30 AM
Couldn`t you simultaneously add even more questions?  How do you expect me to answer all of them? Or at least deal with them? I added the vid specifically to address the 10 minute and 11 second mark. And I mean specifically the rectangle anomaly in that picture. Nothing else, I didn`t need to know how bad or schizofrenic he is, or how you got tired after watching 3 minutes of the video.  Just address the 10;11 mark, address the rectangle and colour dissonance along its lines. Simple as that.
  It's "schizophrenic", with a "ph", not an "f".  And if you were to run many images through filters, you eventually get weird-shaped objects that you can identify as something; this is called pareidolia.  Similar to the "face on mars", which only looks like a face from one particular angle.  Or the "Jesus nebula".

Quote
Don`t call people names behind their back. If you want address hunchbacked, invite him here, or let him reason his refusal.

If someone is dishonest, it is worth calling them dishonest when evaluating their claims, whether they are physically present or not.

Quote
If you were really educated people, or people dealing with science, you would ask me how did I design that helicopter, or what ideas did I put there, what innovations did I plan, or what else I have designed.

So many of your points rest on assuming what others "should" or "should not" do, as if everyone acts on your presupposed notions.  This is a fallacy.

Quote
You know , how NASA has added fire to the conspiracy by declaring no flyby zones, how they have postponed and postponed the return to the moon, joggling from `irrelevant-been there done that, to let`s do it in 2050.

Why would they return to the moon?  Also, what about voyager spacecraft and other things they've sent out?  What about the many people they're sending into space today?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 18, 2012, 10:13:24 AM
Couldn`t you simultaneously add even more questions?  How do you expect me to answer all of them? Or at least deal with them?

Oh, so you're crying foul because we didn't play nice and answer you one at a time? You, who are just throwing more and more crap at the wall with every post, refusing to acknowledge responses and deal with the answers and reasons you have been given?

Quote
I added the vid specifically to address the 10 minute and 11 second mark. And I mean specifically the rectangle anomaly in that picture. Nothing else, I didn`t need to know how bad or schizofrenic he is, or how you got tired after watching 3 minutes of the video.  Just address the 10;11 mark, address the rectangle and colour dissonance along its lines. Simple as that.

I did. At least one other person did. Again, it is a JPEG compression artifact highlighted by messing around in photoshop. Does that rectangular feature show up on the original FILM with the picture on it?

Quote
Don`t call people names behind their back. If you want address hunchbacked, invite him here, or let him reason his refusal.

He has been on this board, or at least the previous incarnation of it, under a different name. He was banned for being rude and refusing to debate in a sensible fashion, being wilfully ignorant and utterly refusing to do even the simplest bit of research that might prove his ideas wrong. He has earned the treatment he gets from the long term posters here. Don't you come on and try to lecture us in manners.

Quote
If you were really educated people, or people dealing with science, you would ask me how did I design that helicopter, or what ideas did I put there, what innovations did I plan, or what else I have designed.

No we wouldn't, because that has NOTHING to do with what you are discussing here.

Quote
I f you were really scientists, and engineers, i would gladly see what have you built with your own hands.

I AM a scientist, by profession and qualification. We don't build things with our own hands, but I have spent almost seven years as part of a team designing and developing a novel blood testing device. When it goes to market I'll let you know.

Quote
And you could have asked me the same questions.

Why would we? You were asked about your qualifications.

Quote
Where are you space , and aviation engineers? come out, i will gladly discuss airframes anf future aircraft. Why don`t you use a chance?

They're already here. They are not discussing those subjects because that is not what this forum is for.
 
Quote
And you know for yourself that there are atronauts who have talked about how beatiful the stars were from space, and you know that this issue has been addressed by jarrah White and Unforgiven ( or similar, can`t remeber his name precisely).

Yes, and they, like you it seems, cannot grasp the simple fact that what you can see and what you can photograph are two very different things due to the different way your eye works compared to a camera.

Quote
You know , how NASA has added fire to the conspiracy by declaring no flyby zones,

Yeah, it's funny how they want to keep some airways free for their own tests rather than risk random private and commercial airliners flying into them isn't it?

Quote
how they have postponed and postponed the return to the moon, joggling from `irrelevant-been there done that, to let`s do it in 2050.

Irrelevant. What they are doing now with regard to the Moon does not invalidate what they did fifty years ago.

Quote
isn`t it amazing that those truly amazing science people were not even interested in having superb star pictures taken on the far side of the moon,

What would be so amazing about them?

Quote
While their 3rd guy was waiting in capsule in lunar orbit, noone of the 2 astronauts was even interested in trying to film or photograph it up there.

Do please feel free to tell us what an Apollo spacecraft at 69 miles altitude would loook like in a picture or video.

Quote
Want the paper work from Boeing about lunar rover, nope, sorry, we flushed it down the toilet.

There is plenty of paperwork about the lunar rover, you just have to go and actually look for it rather than expect them to be able to deliver every sheet of paper that was ever printed on the subject at your request.

Quote
Talking about the stars I dont mean that by any conditions they could photograph stars, I mean they had a lot of chances  to adopt different lenses and exposure settings, and use very good circumstances, in shadows or behind huge boulders to make  really wonderful pictures.

Again, what would be wonderful about pictures of the stars taken on the Moon compared to taken down here? What would be so significantly wonderful about it that they would devote time and effort to getting those images instead of studying the NEW UNTOUCHED LUNAR SURFACE AT THEIR FEET!!!

Quote
Personally I would really like to photograph satellites of jupiter in vacuum, had I been on the moon.

Look up your history. By the time Apollo landed on the Moon, the Voyager probes were in development. And AGAIN, what would be so spectacular about a picture of Jupiter taken from the moon compared to one taken from Earth?

Quote
I would be really interested in usinga FLIR camera as well.

What about a far UV camera? Isn't it weird they didn't take the opportunity to take the one type of picture of the stars that could not be taken from Earth? Oh, wait, THEY DID!

Quote
And I would definitely ask a question where is Westinghouse with their cutting edge videocameras today?

Do you think their 'cutting edge' video cameras had much application outside of the space program? They were poor cousins to the cameras that can be handled and used on Earth due to the limitations on their size, weight and bandwidth that were not a constraint to normal TV cameras. Westinghouse cameras were used in space for a long time.

Quote
Were you really gentlemen, you wouldn`t even allow me to be cornered by so many of you at the same time.
When addressing me, try to imagine , I am a human, not an indicted person in trial.

Were you a gentleman you would conduct yourself in a more mature manner. You raised issues, you were responded to, and instead of dealing with them you just throw out rubbish like this.

You also claimed to be something you are not, by doing the standard 'I'm neutral' approach so favoured by conspiracy theorists. The treatment you receive here, as on any board, is very strongly related to the way you act yourself.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Bob B. on June 18, 2012, 10:20:35 AM
The following is from pages ago, but since advancedboy again recently metioned the F-1, I like to comment.

We might Ask where are the endless improvements of F-1 that would be used today in American rocketry?

Today's launch business is dominated by medium-lift launch vehicles, in which the F-1 engine has no role to play.  The only American heavy-lift vehicle since the days of Saturn was the Space Shuttle, and it used an entirely different design philosophy, combining simple and relatively inexpensive solid rocket motors with high-efficiency hydrogen burning engines.  When NASA started working on new heavy-lift vehicles (the Ares I and V, which have now been canceled), they decided to use to use current Shuttle-derived technology rather than trying to resurrect something that was decades out of date.

The Shuttle philosophy of using solids in combination with LOX/LH2 is now pretty widely used, both in and outside the United States.  Some examples include Delta IV (USA), Ariane 5 (Europe), and H-IIA (Japan).
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: carpediem on June 18, 2012, 10:38:26 AM
He has been on this board, or at least the previous incarnation of it, under a different name. He was banned for being rude and refusing to debate in a sensible fashion, being wilfully ignorant and utterly refusing to do even the simplest bit of research that might prove his ideas wrong. He has earned the treatment he gets from the long term posters here. Don't you come on and try to lecture us in manners.
Hunchbacked was never banned on the old board, he just gave up posting when we all weren't incredibly impressed by his arguments.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Bob B. on June 18, 2012, 10:43:23 AM
Talking about the stars I dont mean that by any conditions they could photograph stars, I mean they had a lot of chances  to adopt different lenses and exposure settings, and use very good circumstances, in shadows or behind huge boulders to make  really wonderful pictures.

In today's dollars, each manhour of lunar EVA cost American taxpayers nearly $1,000,000,000.  I for one am extremely grateful they spent that time studying the moon and didn't fritter it away by taking pictures of stars.  Your suggestion would have been a colossal waste of time and opportunity.  Star photos can be obtained far more cheaply by other means, studying the moon up close by humans cannot.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: carpediem on June 18, 2012, 10:43:48 AM
You know , how NASA has added fire to the conspiracy by declaring no flyby zones, how they have postponed and postponed the return to the moon, joggling from `irrelevant-been there done that, to let`s do it in 2050.
The term no fly zone was used in the title of an AP article, not by NASA and only applies to the Apollo 11 & 17 sites. You don't do a lot of research do you?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Count Zero on June 18, 2012, 10:56:36 AM
Don`t call people names behind their back.

By "names", do you mean things like "fraud" and "life-long liar"?

And by "people" can we include...

Frank Borman
Bill Anders
Jim Lovell
Tom Stafford
John Young
Gene Cernan
Neil Armstrong
Buzz Aldrin
Mike Collins
Pete Conrad
Al Bean
Dick Gordon
Fred Haise
Jack Swigert
Alan Shepard
Ed Mitchell
Stu Roosa
Dave Scott
Jim Irwin
Al Worden
Charlie Duke
Ken Mattingly
Jack Schmitt
Ron Evans

...not to mention Dr. James van Allen and several hundred thousand other people?  Because when you say...

I do believe Apollo was hoaxed

...that is exactly what you are calling them.

You hypocrite.  Don't even try to take the moral high-ground.   >:(
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 18, 2012, 11:01:49 AM
Couldn`t you simultaneously add even more questions?  How do you expect me to answer all of them? Or at least deal with them?

If you focus on proving something, irrelevant comments can safely be ignored.  You are the one letting yourself get sidetracked. 

Quote
Just address the 10;11 mark, address the rectangle and colour dissonance along its lines.

This is a perfect example.  Focus on why you think this is a problem.  Give us the reasons you think this is suspicious.  Then defend those reasons.


Quote
I f you were really scientists, and engineers, i would gladly see what have you built with your own hands. And you could have asked me the same questions. Where are you space , and aviation engineers? come out, i will gladly discuss airframes anf future aircraft. Why don`t you use a chance?

There is a General Discussion section of this forum if you want to start a thread to discuss these things.  Unlike your other board, our primary purpose s to discuss claims a an Apollo hoax.   Besides we are from many different backgrounds, I studied and practice finance.

Quote
You know , how NASA has added fire to the conspiracy by declaring no flyby zones, how they have postponed and postponed the return to the moon, joggling from `irrelevant-been there done that, to let`s do it in 2050.

Show us that this "fire" isn't purely in your imagination by documenting NASA's explanations for such things and telling us why your conspiracy theory better fits the events. 

Quote
Talking about the stars I dont mean that by any conditions they could photograph stars, I mean they had a lot of chances  to adopt different lenses and exposure settings, and use very good circumstances,
You continue to ignore the photos of stars that were taken.  Why is that?

ETA

Quote
I would like someone to take my side as well, or I am the only one here? Were you really gentlemen, you wouldn`t even allow me to be cornered by so many of you at the same time.

Please spare us your martyr speech.  If you feel cornered, it is your on vagueness that has painted you into the corner.   
Quote
When addressing me, try to imagine , I am a human, not an indicted person in trial.

Here is the human I imagine you to be, the person in the photo, a young man who know very little about the things he discusses, yet hurls insults on people who have made tremendous achievements without quite knowing they are insults.

Quoted in whole for archival purposes.

Couldn`t you simultaneously add even more questions?  How do you expect me to answer all of them? Or at least deal with them? I added the vid specifically to address the 10 minute and 11 second mark. And I mean specifically the rectangle anomaly in that picture. Nothing else, I didn`t need to know how bad or schizofrenic he is, or how you got tired after watching 3 minutes of the video.  Just address the 10;11 mark, address the rectangle and colour dissonance along its lines. Simple as that. Don`t call people names behind their back. If you want address hunchbacked, invite him here, or let him reason his refusal.
Emma, yes, I was banned for a week or two from that forum. I was never rude, or accusing anyone personally, but I wanted to talk the moonhoax, and i even couldn`t really start the discussion, when they banned me. I am not denying, but would you expect me to talk about it here on my own initiative? If you were really educated people, or people dealing with science, you would ask me how did I design that helicopter, or what ideas did I put there, what innovations did I plan, or what else I have designed. I f you were really scientists, and engineers, i would gladly see what have you built with your own hands. And you could have asked me the same questions. Where are you space , and aviation engineers? come out, i will gladly discuss airframes anf future aircraft. Why don`t you use a chance?
And you know for yourself that there are atronauts who have talked about how beatiful the stars were from space, and you know that this issue has been addressed by jarrah White and Unforgiven ( or similar, can`t remeber his name precisely).
You know , how NASA has added fire to the conspiracy by declaring no flyby zones, how they have postponed and postponed the return to the moon, joggling from `irrelevant-been there done that, to let`s do it in 2050.
isn`t it amazing that those truly amazing science people were not even interested in having superb star pictures taken on the far side of the moon, . While their 3rd guy was waiting in capsule in lunar orbit, noone of the 2 astronauts was even interested in trying to film or photograph it up there. Want the paper work from Boeing about lunar rover, nope, sorry, we flushed it down the toilet. it is NASA itself that curbs the conspiracy, . Adding more and more fuel to the fire. Where is Baron`s report, even if he was killed by an alien, what happened to NASA`s interest about the report of feasibility of the project .
Talking about the stars I dont mean that by any conditions they could photograph stars, I mean they had a lot of chances  to adopt different lenses and exposure settings, and use very good circumstances, in shadows or behind huge boulders to make  really wonderful pictures. Personally I would really like to photograph satellites of jupiter in vacuum, had I been on the moon. I would be really interested in usinga FLIR camera as well. And I would definitely ask a question where is Westinghouse with their cutting edge videocameras today? What stopped them from accumulating expertize and  be a manufacturer of optics or consumer goods, domestically I mean?
I demand NASA for their future space exploration to ( Mars)use their almighty F-1 engine and continue improving it.  :)
 Now kinda interesting all of you attacking me simultaneously. I would like someone to take my side as well, or I am the only one here? Were you really gentlemen, you wouldn`t even allow me to be cornered by so many of you at the same time.
When addressing me, try to imagine , I am a human, not an indicted person in trial.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 18, 2012, 01:32:07 PM
Looks like I missed most of this discussion.  Not that it's really a discussion, just the standard "stealth entrance, big finish" conspiracy rant.  But I'll weigh in here first, then go back and look at the thread in more detail.

How do you expect me to answer all of them? Or at least deal with them?
Cry me a river.  You purposefully take a minority standpoint and then explicitly argue that standpoint where you'll find lots of critics.  Why would you not expect a deluge of opposition and criticism?  If you want a place to rant against NASA and pat each other on the back for how clever you are, there are plenty of forums that keep critics out for you.

Quote
Just address the 10;11 mark, address the rectangle and colour dissonance along its lines. Simple as that.
Encoding artifact.  And you're only the 100th self-proclaimed "photo analyst" to try to make something of it.  Go study photo analysis for a year in an accredited program, as I did, and get published, then maybe we'll take you seriously.

Quote
Don`t call people names behind their back. If you want address hunchbacked, invite him here, or let him reason his refusal.
He left voluntarily.  If you make a scene and leave the room, what do you think the conversation in that room will be about for the next few minutes?  He's welcome to come back any time and continue the debate where he left off, or complain about having been talked about.  You don't have standing to defend him, so please concentrate on your own arguments and stop trying to poison the well.

Quote
If you were really educated people, or people dealing with science, you would...
"If I ran the zoo."

Quote
If you were really scientists, and engineers, i would gladly see what have you built with your own hands.
I would gladly show you, but it's presently 22,280 miles out in space and looks a little like this (http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/galaxy-13.htm).  I would show you a few other things I've built, but they tend to be expendable and consume themselves as they operate.  And yes, my (gloved) hands were on that equipment helping to construct it, along with other engineers and technicians.  If you'd care to come to my work, I'll show you a city block full of equipment that I and my company have built (yes, much of it with my own two hands) to support our engineering.  And if you go out to our manufacturing and test facility, I'll show you even more.

Instead I'll ask you what your academic and professional qualifications are.   Do they include any formal adjudicated training in the sciences, engineering, or any of the topics you've attempted to invoke here?  How many spacecraft have you personally worked on?

You seem to suggest that engineering expertise is in building small objects by yourself.  I think you confuse engineer with "mechanic" or "hobbyist."  I'm sure you're proud of the things you have built.  But that does not make you an engineer.

Quote
And you could have asked me the same questions.
I am doing just that.  What academic and professional experience qualifies to you criticize and label fraud the U.S. space program?  Put up or shut up.

Quote
Where are you space , and aviation engineers? come out
I'm right here.  I've been working in aerospace for about 25 years.  My last major project was computational fluid dynamics for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, in a contract that paid me and my team about $10 million a year for 5 years.  I've studied engineering and computer science at three different universities and taught it at one of them.  I work in this field, am recognized in this field, and have been quoted in many places as an expert on Apollo.

Pardon my attitude, but who the [bleep] are you?

Quote
i will gladly discuss airframes anf future aircraft.
Another time and place, because that's my second-favorite subject (next to historical aircraft and spacecraft).  But here and now we're discussing the validity and authenticity of the Apollo missions; airframes and speculative aircraft have nothing to do with that.  If you have knowledge or expertise that bears on Apollo, now would be a good time to invoke it.

Quote
And you know for yourself that there are atronauts who have talked about how beatiful the stars were from space...
Yes, I've spoken to them personally and directly.  I know the circumstances of which they speak.  You should also know that these same people (i.e., several of the Apollo astronauts) endorse my knowledge of their missions and the means they used to carry it out.  Don't invoke them unless you're prepared to play with the big boys.

Quote
and you know that this issue has been addressed by jarrah White...
What are his qualifications to do so?

At least we know where you're getting your information.  Don't pretend that you can leach off Jarrah White, spew his nonsense amid trained professionals, and hope this bluffs you past their questions.

Quote
You know , how NASA has added fire to the conspiracy by declaring no flyby zones...
NASA has simply asked other space-faring nations not to fly spacecraft so low over two of the Apollo landing sites that they disturb the artifacts, which have historical significance to the United States.  They have little means to enforce that request.  The other four sites are fair game, and no one has enjoined international orbital photography and surveillance, which has already happened.  You protest too much.

Quote
...how they have postponed and postponed the return to the moon, joggling from `irrelevant-been there done that, to let`s do it in 2050.
NASA hasn't postponed anything.  For that you can blame the elected officials who control NASA's budget and agenda and use it as a political pawn.  You don't know how American government works.

Quote
isn`t it amazing that those truly amazing science people were not even interested in having superb star pictures taken on the far side of the moon.
"If I ran the zoo."

You can take star pictures more effectively from Earth orbit than from lunar orbit.

Quote
Want the paper work from Boeing about lunar rover, nope, sorry, we flushed it down the toilet.
Not according to Boeing.  Scott Sullivan and other engineers were able to find quite enough information on the LRV from public sources (i.e., without even having to go to the Boeing archives) to reverse-engineer it.  I've been able to personally inspect components of the LRV that were built but never flown.  Boeing has confirmed to me that they retain a substantial archive of LRV-related materials, but the practicality of storing it makes it difficult to inspect casually.  Typically those records are microfilmed and stored off site in climate-controlled bunkers.  They are retrieved only when there is a business case to do so, such as if Boeing were asked to build a new rover and wanted to reclaim the previous investment.  Boeing is not a library.  They do not habitually make their records available to private requests, at least not free of charge.

Also, the commercial production of a manned flying machine intended to satisfy a government contract entails the production of unbelievable amounts of documentation, much of which simply becomes irrelevant after the vehicle is no longer in commission.  Once the individual item is out of service, all the manufacturing, service, and test logs can go away.  Once the design is no longer in use, all the design validation results can go away.  There is much more produced in the course of an aerospace contract than is actually useful, historically speaking or in practice.  The law requires us to keep it around, but only for a while.  Due to its volume and the ongoing costs of retention, ephemeral documents are routinely destroyed when no longer needed.

If you worked in aerospace you'd know this.  Also, because of budget cuts, not a lot of money was allocated for records retention.  The contractors said to NASA, "Do you want any of this?"  And NASA had to respond, "We can only take some of it," which was dutifully turned over to the National Archives and constitutes what those archivists believe to be a suitable set of documents.

Further -- and you would know this if you had any experience in the aerospace industry -- the engineering development records for any particular product constitute a trade secret.  Even public contracts allow the manufacturer to retain trade secrets involved in the satisfaction of the contract.  NASA engineers may inspect trade-secret materials.  Investigative boards (e.g., the NTSB) may inspect trade-secret materials.  But they are bound to protect those secrets from public disclosure.  A fair amount of the Apollo contracts involved trade-secret processes, such as Grumman's chem-milling process for producing integrated skin-and-stringer panels and North American's sintering processes.  We choose these companies to fulfill public contracts precisely because they have that expertise.

The bottom line is that if you go to Boeing or Hawker or Lockheed or any large engineering company and ask to see detailed records for how they produce any of their products, at a certain point you'll be told you can't see them.  And it has nothing to do with shadowy hoaxed projects.  It has to do with you being irrationally nosy.

I have an enormous amount of data on the Dreamliner airframe.  If you came to my office asking for it, I'd tell you no and have security escort you out.  Why?  Because I have non-disclosure obligations to Boeing, and the lawsuit for violating it would probably ruin my company.  Hence you'd immediately be considered an industrial spy, and you'd be quite insistently compelled to leave our property.  Does that mean Boeing is hiding something sinister?  No, they're just protecting their immense investment in technology they hope will make them money.

That said, there is a colossal amount of information in the public record about Apollo's engineering.  I own a mere fraction of it in solid form, and it takes up more than 4 feet of shelf space in my office.  I have even started keeping some of it in my company library instead.  That doesn't even count the material I can obtain in digital form.

So don't even try to talk about the Apollo engineering records being somehow sealed or suppressed.  You really don't know what you're talking about.

Quote
it is NASA itself that curbs the conspiracy.
Hogwash.  When NASA announced plans to fund an effort to answer all the conspiracy theorists' questions, the American public rose up and with a loud voice said, "No, do not spend our taxpayer money on such nonsense."  The project was quickly canceled.  You grossly overestimate the credibility of the hoax claims.  These claimants keep the questions open for their own ends, not because there's any actual controversy.  Jarrah loves all the attention he gets.  So does Bart Sibrel, and so did Bill Kaysing -- who flatly admitted he made the whole thing up just to embarrass the government.

Any time I need to contact NASA for answer, they're quite helpful and forthcoming.  On the contrary I've tried to deal with the major hoax claimants (e.g., interceding on behalf of television producers) and I find them to be secretive, evasive, and generally unwilling to have their claims examined.  Some of them won't appear with the others because they accuse each other behind the scenes of stealing each others' material and market shares.

Did you know Jarrah was invited to present his materials to a panel of experts in his hometown in Australia?  It was all arranged; all he had to do was show up.  He didn't even acknowledge the invitation.  Why do you suppose that is?

Quote
Where is Baron`s report...
The short report is available and is part of the record.  As nearly as we can tell, Baron's long report was returned to him at the close of hearings.  From what we can tell in the short report, Baron had no real knowledge, no real credibility, and no real substance.  He was only put there by Walter Mondale, who was trying to use the Apollo 1 hearings to shut down Apollo and NASA for his own political purposes.  Putting Baron on the witness stand was a political stunt.

And none of that had anything to do with NASA.  NASA was one of the entities being investigated.

Quote
...even if he was killed by an alien
Thomas R. Baron was killed by a train, not an alien.  Where do you people get this stuff?

The death of Baron and his family was investigated by the highway patrol and ruled an accident.  There was one report that it had been a suicide, but that was followed up on and found to be a rumor only.  No evidence supports this.  No one except a couple of conspiracy theorists have suggested that Baron's death was anything other than an accident.

Quote
...what happened to NASA`s interest about the report of feasibility of the project.
Not sure which report you mean.  If you mean the report referred to by Bill Kaysing, then there is no such report.  Or at least none that he never produced it.  He merely claimed it existed and never once substantiated that claim.

Quote
Talking about the stars I dont mean that by any conditions they could photograph stars, I mean they had a lot of chances  to adopt different lenses and exposure settings...
In your vast experience photographing stars, is that all that's required to obtain good pictures of them?

Quote
...and use very good circumstances in shadows or behind huge boulders to make  really wonderful pictures.
They did.  They put a Schmidt camera in the shadow of the LM.  Why didn't you know that?  Why do you think your feeble suggestions of how and where to take photos are useful ones?

Quote
Personally I would really like to photograph satellites of jupiter in vacuum, had I been on the moon.
"If I ran the zoo."

Quote
I would be really interested in usinga FLIR camera as well.
"If I ran the zoo."

Quote
And I would definitely ask a question where is Westinghouse with their cutting edge videocameras today?
The same place Magnavox is today with their video playback technology.  Times change, markets change, company focus changes.

"If I ran the zoo."

Quote
What stopped them from accumulating expertize and  be a manufacturer of optics or consumer goods, domestically I mean?
Westinghouse was never a manufacturer of consumer video cameras.  Nor did their experience manufacturing special-purpose video cameras for space applications give them any particular expertise in consumer video technology.

If you knew anything about the video camera market, you'd realize that there's practically nothing in common between consumer video technology and commercial video technology, at least in terms of how the equipment is engineered.  Consumer video technology is about reducing size and recovering manufacturing costs through planned obsolescence.  During the heydey of the video camera market (which is waning now due to the incorporation of handheld video into smart phones), people replaced their camcorders every 18 months or so.  This means the goal is to make them smaller (i.e., more attractive) and more cheaply.  They are throwaway items, not meant to be repaired or to last very long.

In contrast, commercial video technology is about cameras that are rugged, field serviceable, and component-wise upgradable.  A professional videographer is going to own his camera for several years.  It's big and bulky in order to address the field-service and upgrade requirements.  It has interchangeable sensors and lenses because that's what he needs to perform his service.

In further contrast, scientific and engineering video technology is about surviving the harsh environment to which the video camera is going to be subjected, such as space, or the fiery maelstrom of the launch pad.  This is the market in which Westinghouse originally operated.  And for a time after Apollo they continued to design and produce specialty video cameras for rugged, harsh environments (e.g., underwater photography and data-acquisition applications).  But as with most American companies, they found themselves unable to compete in the 1980s with Japanese companies and so left the market.

"If I ran the zoo."  Don't pretend you understand that market and the engineering that supports it.

Quote
I demand NASA for their future space exploration to (Mars) use their almighty F-1 engine and continue improving it.  :)
"If I ran the zoo."

What makes you think the rocket engines we use today don't descend appropriately from lessons learned on the F-1?  What makes you think the F-1 is suitable to today's needs?  What, other than its size and power, makes the F-1 the sine qua non and gold standard of rocket technology?

Don't pretend you understand the current drivers for the space engineering market.

Quote
Now kinda interesting all of you attacking me simultaneously. I would like someone to take my side as well, or I am the only one here?
At present you're the only one here.  If your arguments don't convince anyone to take your side, try to work out why.  If you can't deal with being a very small minority, go back into your house, close the door, and draw the shades.  This is the real world, where practically every single appropriately qualified and educated person believes the Moon landings were real and has the knowledge to back up that belief.  If you want to kick that in the shins, be my guest.

If you want someone to take your side, convince that person that you're right and that your cause is worth taking up.  Don't just make a lot of demands for people to see things your way, and then complain when real life shapes up differently.

Quote
Were you really gentlemen, you wouldn`t even allow me to be cornered by so many of you at the same time.
Yeah, every conspiracy theorist whines about being outnumbered and outgunned.  Try to work out why you're those things.  Hint:  it's not because everyone but you is sheeple.

Quote
When addressing me, try to imagine , I am a human, not an indicted person in trial.
Appeal to pity.  You are the one making accusations of fraud and hoax.  If you don't want those accusations vigorously challenged, you're in the wrong place.  You don't get to parade your ignorance and arrogance around for all to see, then complain about shabby treatment.

When you address us, remember that you are addressing people who do for a living the things you say can't be or weren't done.  Your victim stance and bluster don't work on us.  Every conspiracy theorist does that.  We're used to it.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 18, 2012, 01:45:09 PM
Stars- moonmissions gave them a chance to make pictures without atmospheric aberation, although, they could have  done it from low-earth orbit. Since they didn`t have adaptive optics then, they could used advantage of lack of atmosphere.  Also if they could see but couldn`t photograph, seems funny that on Apollo 11 they couldn`t remember what stars they could see, which was also admitted by Russian scientists  to be very weird.

Emma, I don`t care what your papers are, but rather what is that you do, meaning where you apply your knowledge and passion `muscles`.
 The video  with  the rectangle is suspicious,  it doesn`t take a rocket scientist to see that if there is a rectangle around a blob which seems to be an astronaut, there is something fishy. Of course, you could imply that it was faked by the author who posted it.
I believe that Apollo was hoaxed, even if it implies surnames of these people. I `d rather believe aliens hanging around S4 and flying around in a TR3a mercury plasma rotating engine than Apollo( as a comparison). Sorry,  I can`t fathom Apollo missions.  Even if it means for you that I am ignorant fool. So be it.
 I sense, that it might be that some former astronaut is even here in these forums, reading it and being angry to me.  Just a guess.  I also have this feeling that most of you work for government institutions or formerly did, hence the reservedness about 9/11 simple yes/no answers.
About lunar rover paperwork. So it means James Collier was lying. Hmm, that would be very strange.
-And Emma, I didn`t break any rules on that forum, as I posted the moonhoax ideas in off-topic section.
Another question, when do Americans plan to drop RD-180 in favour of their own design?
Another question, what else do you discuss, because I don`t see many posts or topics here dealing with much at all. Is it because you moved the site?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: sts60 on June 18, 2012, 01:55:23 PM
Hi, advancedboy.  A belated welcome to the board.

I have not had the chance to peruse this thread in detail, but the notion of "strong" vs. "weak" Apollo hoax claims, while interesting, is problematic.

A strong claim would do the following:
1. Identify an actual anomaly (not an error of understanding, personal opinion, wishful thinking, or fabrication) and explain it in terms of contributing to a hoax.
2. Explain how the "hoax" interpretation is preferable to the conventional explanation.
3. Provide some kind of evidence for the specific hoax activity.
And, at a higher level, a strong claim that Apollo was a hoax needs to:
4. Explain how the hoax makes sense in the context of the Apollo record.  This not only include the technical context, but the scientific, historical, political, budgetary, and managerial contexts as well.

I'm afraid that none of the hoax claims I have seen in ten years of fooling around on these forums, or in over two decades in the space business, even pass the first test, let alone all four.  That includes, I regret to say, the claims you have deployed here.  None of them are original and they have all been vetted rather thoroughly.  You've also made "if I ran the zoo" type claims, but don't appear to have much relevant expertise or familiarity with the Apollo record, so that doesn't help you.   Additionally, you've attempted poisoning the well (the "NASA employee" bit) and to invoke a DavidC/rocky style loyalty test.

You seem to be getting a little frustrated with your lack of traction here.  Yes, it can be intimidating to have a dozen people responding to everything, but this is a web forum, not a one-on-one debate.  It may also seem frustrating that no one is really buying your claims, but the regulars here collectively have a great deal of familiarity with the topics, as well as the well-worn hoax claims, and quite a few have significant relevant expertise.   

I don't really see any need for me to add to the specific rebuttals at this point, but I am curious if you have plans to offer any "strong" hoax claims at some point.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 18, 2012, 01:56:51 PM
Emma, I don`t care what your papers are, but rather what is that you do, meaning where you apply your knowledge and passion `muscles`.

And I have said I choose not to tell you.  Suffice to say I am a trained physicist and I use my degrees both in my work and as part of one of my hobbies.


 
Quote
The video  with  the rectangle is suspicious,  it doesn`t take a rocket scientist to see that if there is a rectangle around a blob which seems to be an astronaut, there is something fishy. Of course, you could imply that it was faked by the author who posted it.

Compression artefact.  You have ignored Jason's question about the original film, why is that?


Quote
I also have this feeling that most of you work for government institutions or formerly did, hence the reservedness about 9/11 simple yes/no answers.

WHICH government?  I assume you mean the American govt?  I have never even been to America, let alone worked for the government.  I have never worked for any government.  I am well aware of your ideas re 9/11.


Quote
I believe that Apollo was hoaxed, even if it implies surnames of these people. I `d rather believe aliens hanging around S4 and flying around in a TR3a mercury plasma rotating engine than Apollo( as a comparison). Sorry,  I can`t fathom Apollo missions.  Even if it means for you that I am ignorant fool. So be it.

Well, yes.  I do believe anyone who thinks that something outside his own understanding MUST be fake is acting in an ignorant and foolish way, if he chooses not to educate himself or accept the word of experts.

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 18, 2012, 01:58:29 PM
Stars- moonmissions gave them a chance to make pictures without atmospheric aberation, although, they could have  done it from low-earth orbit. Since they didn`t have adaptive optics then, they could used advantage of lack of atmosphere.

Little thing called HST.  Heard of it? 

Which makes more sense to you; build a nice big telescope and boost it just out of the atmosphere?  Or cram a small telescope in and amid all the existing equipment that is going all the way to the surface of the Moon?


  Also if they could see but couldn`t photograph, seems funny that on Apollo 11 they couldn`t remember what stars they could see, which was also admitted by Russian scientists  to be very weird.

Have you answered ANY of the direct questions yet?

What shutter speed would be necessary with the stock film and lens of the surface Hasselblad?
What is the percent-of-frame change in the apparent position of stars over a full year?  (Hint -- I asked you to look up the term "parsec.")


Emma, I don`t care what your papers are, but rather what is that you do, meaning where you apply your knowledge and passion `muscles`.
 The video  with  the rectangle is suspicious,  it doesn`t take a rocket scientist to see that if there is a rectangle around a blob which seems to be an astronaut, there is something fishy. Of course, you could imply that it was faked by the author who posted it.
I believe that Apollo was hoaxed, even if it implies surnames of these people. I `d rather believe aliens hanging around S4 and flying around in a TR3a mercury plasma rotating engine than Apollo( as a comparison). Sorry,  I can`t fathom Apollo missions.  Even if it means for you that I am ignorant fool. So be it.
 I sense, that it might be that some former astronaut is even here in these forums, reading it and being angry to me.  Just a guess.  I also have this feeling that most of you work for government institutions or formerly did, hence the reservedness about 9/11 simple yes/no answers.

No.

This is the problem; to you, it is all about belief structures and "sides."

You can't seem to conceive that it is possible to discuss an issue on the science.

The refusal to answer your 9-11 question is not because of some group affiliation, it is because it is an asinine substitution of group think over debate.

As long as you fail to realize that, you will fail to have a meaningful debate on anything on this board.

About lunar rover paperwork. So it means James Collier was lying. Hmm, that would be very strange.
-And Emma, I didn`t break any rules on that forum, as I posted the moonhoax ideas in off-topic section.
Another question, when do Americans plan to drop RD-180 in favour of their own design?
Another question, what else do you discuss, because I don`t see many posts or topics here dealing with much at all. Is it because you moved the site?

Stop with the questions.  It is your turn to start answering some.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 18, 2012, 02:02:49 PM
Stars- moonmissions gave them a chance to make pictures without atmospheric aberation, although, they could have  done it from low-earth orbit.

Precisely. On the other hand, being on the Moon gives them a chance to take pictures of the Moon and collect samples of its surface, which they absolutely CANNOT do anywhere else. Their object was to study the Moon, not take pictures of stars.

Quote
Also if they could see but couldn`t photograph, seems funny that on Apollo 11 they couldn`t remember what stars they could see

Yeah, weird that they don't have total recall when asked about an experiment that didn't actually involve specifically looking at stars anyway...

Quote
Emma, I don`t care what your papers are, but rather what is that you do, meaning where you apply your knowledge and passion `muscles`

It is still irrelevant. After all, if you're not a qualified aerospace engineer what does it matter if your opponents here are not?

Quote
The video  with  the rectangle is suspicious,  it doesn`t take a rocket scientist to see that if there is a rectangle around a blob which seems to be an astronaut, there is something fishy.

For the last time, JPEG COMPRESSION! That picture was NOT a digital image originally. It was taken on film. Any analysis for things like that needs to be done on the photo itself, NOT a digital scan of it.

Quote
Of course, you could imply that it was faked by the author who posted it.

No, but I do believe the person who posted it does not understand photo analysis.

Quote
I believe that Apollo was hoaxed, even if it implies surnames of these people.

Fine. Then quit telling us off for talking about other people in negative terms, because you are doing EXACTLY that.

Quote
Sorry,  I can`t fathom Apollo missions.  Even if it means for you that I am ignorant fool. So be it.

I honestly do not understand the mindset of people like you. Why are you so happy to remain in ignorance? If you can't fathom it, why are you so unwilling to educate yourself so you CAN fathom it?

Quote
I also have this feeling that most of you work for government institutions or formerly did, hence the reservedness about 9/11 simple yes/no answers.

How many times do you have to be told that the reservedness was purely the result of the way YOU framed the 9/11 question as some kind of litmus test of our objectivity? It is irrelevant to Apollo in every way.

Quote
About lunar rover paperwork. So it means James Collier was lying.

No, but it does mean that he was WRONG. Why is it that conspiracy theorists cannot understand the difference between a mistake and a deliberate lie?

He tried to get some information. He was told it was not available. He implied from that it had been destroyed. The mistake is his. He's not lying, he's just plain wrong.

Quote
Another question, when do Americans plan to drop RD-180 in favour of their own design?

Why should they when it works and is cheaper than making their own?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Zakalwe on June 18, 2012, 02:03:03 PM
The video  with  the rectangle is suspicious,  it doesn`t take a rocket scientist to see that if there is a rectangle around a blob which seems to be an astronaut, there is something fishy. Of course, you could imply that it was faked by the author who posted it.
It might be. But is the original suspicious? And is your suspicion based on ignorance and a biased view, rather than one based on a detailed forensic analysis? Remember, just because you say something doesn't make it so

I believe that Apollo was hoaxed, even if it implies surnames of these people. I `d rather believe aliens hanging around S4 and flying around in a TR3a mercury plasma rotating engine than Apollo( as a comparison). Sorry,  I can`t fathom Apollo missions.  Even if it means for you that I am ignorant fool. So be it.
That, my friend, shows that you are being wilfully ignorant. And there is nothing that smacks more of intellectual cowardice than wilful ignorance.

Sorry,  I can`t fathom Apollo missions.
Ever ask yourself WHY you can't fathom them? Ever considered that they were planned and executed by people with far more training, experience, and possibly more intelligence than you?

I sense, that it might be that some former astronaut is even here in these forums, reading it and being angry to me.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Gadfium/Forum%20Uploads/Untitled-1.jpg)
WTF has that to do with anything related to Apollo????


Another question, when do Americans plan to drop RD-180 in favour of their own design?
Another question, what else do you discuss, because I don`t see many posts or topics here dealing with much at all. Is it because you moved the site?
Again with the gish-gallop. Please answer at least some of the questions that have been addressed to you.


<edited to correct spelling>

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: gillianren on June 18, 2012, 02:09:28 PM
I am not a scientist (or a gentleman, come to that, another thing that arrogantboy hasn't responded to), but even I know that it isn't what you do at home that proves your understanding and that the pieces of paper can be extremely relevant.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 18, 2012, 02:32:30 PM
Hunchbacked was never banned on the old board, he just gave up posting when we all weren't incredibly impressed by his arguments.

I stand corrected. You can understand where I got confused though...
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: sts60 on June 18, 2012, 02:40:27 PM
...If you were really scientists, and engineers, i would gladly see what have you built with your own hands...
(Leans back in chair and looks at collection of patches on tackboard)

Well, let's see.  One spacecraft is in a hangar in Houston, after having been deployed three times (one captive, two free flights) by various Shuttles.  One of the ground systems is in Virginia (one of the associated spacecraft is no longer operational, the other is at the bottom of the Pacific; that's the way it goes sometimes).  Another ground system is in Colorado; good luck getting past the civilian guards at the main gate, let alone the M4-toting Air Force young'uns and their German Shepherds at the inner gate, for a peek at that one*.  One of the spacecraft for which I've done engineering support is on its way to Pluto; another is on its way to Mars, so I don't think I can arrange a personal tour of either.  There's some other projects for which I provided ephemeral - I mean really minimal - support... one in orbit, the remnants of another long since cleaned up off the Wallops Island beaches, one is orbiting Saturn.  Some other systems are retired from Shuttle use.  One system I'm working on is getting built in a number of different states and doesn't have a ride (i.e., assigned spacecraft) yet.

Hope that helped.  (Picks up coffee cup, gets back to work.)


*And for Heaven's sake, don't step on the dirt track along the inner fence.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Bob B. on June 18, 2012, 02:42:17 PM
Another question, when do Americans plan to drop RD-180 in favour of their own design?

The RD-180 (co-produced by NPO Energomash and Pratt & Whitney) is used on the Common Core Booster of Lockheed Martin's Atlas V.  As long as that one particular rocket stage continues to fly its current design, it will use the RD-180.  If at some point in the future a redesign becomes necessary, it's possible the engine my change to something else.  In the meantime, as long as the US-Russian partnership is working, there is certainly no reason to change.

Why the fixation on the one particular engine?  American designed and manufactured engines have been used for decades in many different rockets.  The Atlas V itself uses a Pratt & Whitney second stage engine and the solid rocket boosters are made by Aerojet.  As another example, the Delta IV uses Alliant SRBs, a Rocketdyne engine in the Common Booster Core, and a Pratt & Whitney upper stage engine.  The RD-180 is used in only one stage of one rocket.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 18, 2012, 02:46:47 PM
Does that mean Boeing is hiding something sinister?  No, they're just protecting their immense investment in technology they hope will make them money.

A completely rational explanation that has conspiracy theorists screaming about compartmentalisation and hidden agendas of the industrial military complex, seeking codes in the words of the astronauts to support their crackpottery.  ::)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 18, 2012, 02:48:51 PM
Well, let's see.  One spacecraft is in a hangar in Houston...

Now that's just showing off.  :-*
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 18, 2012, 02:54:18 PM
moon missions gave them a chance to make pictures without atmospheric aberatuion although, they could have  done it from low-earth orbit.
Indeed.  Apollo was about landing a man on the Moon and returning him to Earth.  Every major project provides opportunities for various side projects.  Not doing some of them, in favor of the primary mission, is not evidence that those major projects are fake.  You're simply making up new rules for people to follow and trying to take them to task for not following them.  When you have your own space program you can run it any way you want.  But until then, your personal opinion of what constitutes a valid space program is simply irrelevant.

Quote
...seems funny that on Apollo 11 they couldn`t remember what stars they could see...
Misrepresentation.  Sir Patrick Moore asked the Apollo 11 flight crew about star visibility under two different conditions.  One of the conditions involved substantial attention to the task at hand (solar corona photography), not to ephemeral observations.  The inability to remember an ephemeral detail is not per se suspicious.  The crew correctly and confidently reported the visibility of stars in the other conditions.

Quote
which was also admitted by Russian scientists  to be very weird.
Citation, please.

Quote
The video with the rectangle is suspicious...
No, it merely doesn't meet your expectation.  You have the burden to prove your uninformed, inexperienced expectation is valid.

Quote
...it doesn`t take a rocket scientist to see that if there is a rectangle around a blob which seems to be an astronaut, there is something fishy.
Correct, it takes a photo analyst -- someone with the proper training and experience to know whether what he sees in a video is anomalous or not.  Since those of us who do have the proper training can correctly identify the feature as an artifact of video encoding, your repeated statements of uninformed belief are simply unconvincing.

I have asked you what your qualifications are for making these claims.  You have failed to answer.  The "It doesn't take an expert" rejoinder is characteristic of people who know they don't have the appropriate qualifications, so I'll assume that's my answer and that it confirms you claim no expertise or qualifications.

Quote
I believe that Apollo was hoaxed, even if it implies surnames of these people.
Then if you unapologetically call them liars and frauds, you have very little moral room to call out others for alleged misconduct or defamation.  Calling someone a liar simply because you don't understand his claim is consummately bad manners, and you are egregiously guilty of it.

Quote
I `d rather believe aliens hanging around S4 and flying around in a TR3a mercury plasma rotating engine than Apollo( as a comparison).
You're free to believe as you wish.  You're not free to suppose that all your beliefs are substantiated by objectively admirable evidence.

Quote
Sorry,  I can`t fathom Apollo missions.
That's your problem.  Kindly don't blame that on those of us who can, which constitutes the vast majority of the educated world.

Quote
Even if it means for you that I am ignorant fool. So be it.
I use the word "ignorant" with respect to you because I believe it accurately, succinctly, and fairly describes your approach to Apollo.  You seem to have steeped yourself in conspiracy materials and believed that this then endows you with an expert's view of the subject.  To confront actual experts with pseudoscience is, in my mind, a foolish thing to do.  But I don't need to call you names in order to understand your failure to make a valid point.
 
Quote
I also have this feeling that most of you work for government institutions or formerly did, hence the reservedness about 9/11 simple yes/no answers.
No.  Most conspiracy theorists who fail to convince their audience end up muttering the same hogwash about how we're all government agents.  Conspiracy theorists tend to be very adverse to the notion that there can be informed objection to their beliefs.  Get over it.  Nobody here is a government agent -- current or former.

The reluctance to convert the discussion into a 9/11 debate is because we can see that it's a tactic you're using to try to change the subject and avoid being held accountable for your claims already on the table.

Quote
About lunar rover paperwork. So it means James Collier was lying. Hmm, that would be very strange.
No, it would be par for the course for Jim Collier, who was quite possibly the world's worst journalist.  I document Collier's extensive error, dishonestly, manipulation, and misrepresentation on my web site.

Quote
Another question, when do Americans plan to drop RD-180 in favour of their own design?

A good design is a good design.  When we have the need for a new design, we'll make one.  If market forces determine that it's better than one produced overseas, then good for its designer.  It's a world market at this point.

Quote
Another question, what else do you discuss, because I don`t see many posts or topics here dealing with much at all. Is it because you moved the site?
Yes, this is a relatively new hosting agency for the site.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Laurel on June 18, 2012, 03:09:17 PM
I am not a scientist (or a gentleman, come to that, another thing that arrogantboy hasn't responded to), but even I know that it isn't what you do at home that proves your understanding and that the pieces of paper can be extremely relevant.
I'm not a scientist or a gentleman either. I have had a few temporary low-level government jobs, but not in the USA.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 18, 2012, 03:23:11 PM
I'm not a gentleman, I'm a method man.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 18, 2012, 03:35:47 PM
Jay, You have worked on 787 Delayliner, yet you tell me to go study photography, implying that the picture still in the video at 10;11 is ok. But it is not. You can compress or unzip as often you like, you won`t see such an anomaly around a single object within a video, while having no similar patterns  elsewhere. You always demand to go study originals. Originals what? The orginal film it was shot on, or  NASA website, that would have managed to sanitize such things. Jay, how was the wing design ? Did the guys at Mitsu have  to sweat a lot? Well, that is kinda off topic, sorry from me.
 As to Russian scientists talking about  Apollo  11 star` recollection , I can post the whole video, if you want, but it is unfortunately in Russian. They also talk about flag waving, but not that it waves in wind, but that it doesn`t sway to the way inertia would require, they point to periodic fluttering towards one side.
On a sidenote, I predict grim future for Boeing, as it will have to face fiercer and fiercer competition from Airbus, Comac, Russians as well, with their MC-21 and Sukhoi-100, .  I believe Boeing had to build their Large single deck aircraft once they displayed their plans in Aviation week And Space technology  to fight A380. Sadly they resorted to botox injection in old 747.
Anyway, sems strange that I have been researching and loving aviation since childhood, and I had never doubted things in aviation, except I have been disppointed in eternal shrinkage of US plane diversity, and completely maddened by Boeing renaming an old MDd as 717. Aviation was the last US industry that didn`t have rebadging. Besides that I didn`t doubt much anything, but Apollo was different,. And when you said that Kaysing bluntly lied, and that he made stuff up, I can`t believe it. I simply can`t.  It is beyond my power to believe that Kaysing would have lied. Not him. He might have been wrong on some issues, but I would bet my life, not blatantly lying.
My disbelief in US moonlandings actually comes from another aspect, but it is a seperate discussion. it deals with 2 issues- extremely complex engineering. And US ability to deal with extremely complex engineering using in-house engineering  all years afterwards . For me the reliabilty of the whole Apollo project + its complexity, is somewhat suspicious.  Imagine after the demise of Apolo project, those great engineers should have been working and appluying their superb engineering skills in civilian world, meaning facing real competition with Asians and germans. But it is one big disappointment after another , at least for me.  I will delve in this issue much later. And don`t be that agressive, I simply have no power of believing Apollo so far, and it is beyond my power to lie  to myself that I believe it.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 18, 2012, 03:37:58 PM
Advancedboy, read this: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/artifacts.html

I find it hard to understand why you find it so easy to believe thousands of people lied about Apollo (and continue to do so, including all of us), but you cannot even consider that Bill Kaysing is full of it.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 18, 2012, 03:40:37 PM
At least you post reasonably frequently.  It means I can be amused.

Stars- moonmissions gave them a chance to make pictures without atmospheric aberation, although, they could have  done it from low-earth orbit. Since they didn`t have adaptive optics then, they could used advantage of lack of atmosphere.  Also if they could see but couldn`t photograph, seems funny that on Apollo 11 they couldn`t remember what stars they could see, which was also admitted by Russian scientists  to be very weird.

There is nothing the 70mm Hasselblad camera could have achieved on the Moon that they couldn't on Earth.  It's only when you get into the really high end astronomical equipment that atmospheric effects begin to matter.  The Lunar missions weren't about building an observatory on the Moon, as cool as that would be, it was about studying the Moon.

Quote
Emma, I don`t care what your papers are, but rather what is that you do, meaning where you apply your knowledge and passion `muscles`.
 The video  with  the rectangle is suspicious,  it doesn`t take a rocket scientist to see that if there is a rectangle around a blob which seems to be an astronaut, there is something fishy. Of course, you could imply that it was faked by the author who posted it.

So what is your exact explanation for it then?  We want to see if it makes sense even on your own terms.  Frequently, conspiracists' explanations for their anomalies don't, eg why on Earth or the Moon would they paste the LRV over the top of the crosshair.

Quote
I believe that Apollo was hoaxed, even if it implies surnames of these people. I `d rather believe aliens hanging around S4 and flying around in a TR3a mercury plasma rotating engine than Apollo( as a comparison). Sorry,  I can`t fathom Apollo missions.  Even if it means for you that I am ignorant fool. So be it.

What do you mean you'd rather believe aliens on the Mandeville Road?  Isn't this about what is credible, rather than would is a preferred viewpoint?  No wonder you believe it, if you have such a bias.

Quote
I sense, that it might be that some former astronaut is even here in these forums, reading it and being angry to me.  Just a guess.  I also have this feeling that most of you work for government institutions or formerly did, hence the reservedness about 9/11 simple yes/no answers.

We suspected that was your game.  The irrelevant 9/11 question was simply an attempt to elicit a response you could use to dismiss us through ad hominem.  If we did work for government institutions, wouldn't we just say the government line rather than equivocating?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 18, 2012, 03:42:49 PM
For the record, I have never worked with any government.  I am a college student, and a history major/archaeology minor, so it's unlikely I'll end up working with the government.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 18, 2012, 03:48:29 PM
And when you said that Kaysing bluntly lied, and that he made stuff up, I can`t believe it. I simply can`t.  It is beyond my power to believe that Kaysing would have lied. Not him. He might have been wrong on some issues, but I would bet my life, not blatantly lying.

The man was rotten to the core. I used to have sympathy for him, and felt he dealt out many wonderful acts of kindness. As I have learned more about him, I realised he was a bitter and selfish man that used the moon hoax to kick around with his ego at every possible opportunity; no matter what lies and mistruths he spread. He was good at hamming it from his rocking chair, kindly old Kaysing pretending to sound erudite on all matters.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 18, 2012, 03:53:48 PM
Jay, You have worked on 787 Delayliner, yet you tell me to go study photography, implying that the picture still in the video at 10;11 is ok. But it is not. You can compress or unzip as often you like, you won`t see such an anomaly around a single object within a video, while having no similar patterns  elsewhere. You always demand to go study originals. Originals what? The orginal film it was shot on, or  NASA website, that would have managed to sanitize such things.

You haven't played with compression much, have you?  You can make all sorts of things appear.

Quote
On a sidenote, I predict grim future for Boeing, as it will have to face fiercer and fiercer competition from Airbus, Comac, Russians as well, with their MC-21 and Sukhoi-100, .  I believe Boeing had to build their Large single deck aircraft once they displayed their plans in Aviation week And Space technology  to fight A380. Sadly they resorted to botox injection in old 747.

The number of times in the past decade both Boeing and Airbus have been doomed is too innumerable.

Quote
And when you said that Kaysing bluntly lied, and that he made stuff up, I can`t believe it. I simply can`t.  It is beyond my power to believe that Kaysing would have lied. Not him. He might have been wrong on some issues, but I would bet my life, not blatantly lying.

Really?  You'll believe 400,000 people will bluntly lie, but not one man, the judicial system labelled a kook.  Did Elvis do drugs?

Quote
My disbelief in US moonlandings actually comes from another aspect, but it is a seperate discussion. it deals with 2 issues- extremely complex engineering. And US ability to deal with extremely complex engineering using in-house engineering  all years afterwards . For me the reliabilty of the whole Apollo project + its complexity, is somewhat suspicious. 

What reliability?  They killed three astronauts with one accident and nearly killed three others with another.  Oh wait, those were really just sub-conspiracies.  When things goes well, it's suspicious.  When things goes badly, something fish y is going on.  It's the head I win, tails you lose logic of the conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 18, 2012, 03:54:53 PM
..787 Delayliner..study photography...sanitize such things..the guys at Mitsu..Apollo  11 star` recollection..flag waving..future for Boeing..US plane diversity..renaming..Kaysing bluntly lied..complex engineering..competition with Asians and germans...

Too much coffee man.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tedward on June 18, 2012, 03:58:04 PM
I am curios as to what you are going to achieve with a camera on the moon, that is the one taken and given the mission.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 18, 2012, 04:00:26 PM
Jay, You have worked on 787 Delayliner, yet you tell me to go study photography, implying that the picture still in the video at 10;11 is ok. But it is not.

Here we go, a man with NO experience in photo analysis telling a man who DOES have that expertise how to do his work. What is it with you people who think everything is understandable by common sense and instinct?

Quote
You always demand to go study originals. Originals what? The orginal film it was shot on,

YES, for the umpeenth time!

Quote
NASA website, that would have managed to sanitize such things.

Typical. If they can 'sanitise' the original film (another element that you have NO clue about, as you have demonstrated from your first post talking about 'negatives'), how the hell did that 'unsanitised' image get published? Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting they could hide all the evidence of modifying the original picture, but decided to do it AFTER it has been mass-copied and distributed around the world?

Quote
And when you said that Kaysing bluntly lied, and that he made stuff up, I can`t believe it. I simply can`t.  It is beyond my power to believe that Kaysing would have lied. Not him. He might have been wrong on some issues, but I would bet my life, not blatantly lying.

Why? Did you know the man personally? What is it that convinces you he was so honest? Why do you place your faith in a person's integrity above things that are actually verfiable?

Tell me, what is your opinion of a man who writes a book accusing NASA of fraud and murder, among other things, then tries to sue an astronaut for calling him 'wacky' after reading the book? A man who appeals constantly to anonymous authorities and dead people to support his arguments? A man who claims the media is being controlled and people are being killed to keep the hoax quiet, yet uses that media to publish his stuff and openly publishes his address? Why are the 'feds' so incompetent they can't silence a man who gives them his calling card?!

Quote
For me the reliabilty of the whole Apollo project + its complexity, is somewhat suspicious.

Since you have demonstrated no understanding of the project, this counts for very little.

Quote
Imagine after the demise of Apolo project, those great engineers should have been working and appluying their superb engineering skills in civilian world, meaning facing real competition with Asians and germans.

Why 'should' they have followed that route?

Quote
it is beyond my power to lie  to myself that I believe it.

It is not beyond your power to educate yourself, but no, you prefer to remain blissfully ignorant of the details that are REQUIRED to draw a defenisble conclusion. It just doesn't fit your expectation, therefore it is suspect. Well who says your expectations are right?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 18, 2012, 04:01:01 PM
Not that it matters, but I worked for "The Government" twice -- federal for three years and change, and state for ten years.  In the latter, my paycheck was actually signed (stamped) by the state comptroller (because we were an independent district that fell directly under the state).  I have also followed two career paths in which I carried the title of "engineer" -- but in neither was I required to have anything particularly resembling the discipline and education of, well, engineering.  I'm an arts major, a science geek without the math to understand much beyond the basics, and I work currently as a freelancer in the arts industry.

And you can STILL take your 9-11 question, advancedgameboy, and stick it.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 18, 2012, 04:02:02 PM
So, let's see.  We have two sides (and I don't think you can accuse it of being a false dichotomy):

A)  We worked hard on the space program, getting the best and the brightest of engineers, the best and the bravest of test pilots, all working together as a team to make little steps in getting us into space, and later to the moon.  Being an entirely new experimental form of human transportation into a hostile region (far more hostile than even a submarine in the ocean, which can come up for air), not everything went perfectly, the first Apollo craft had a horrible accident, and Apollo 13 nearly resulted in the death of its crew, coming back only thanks to ingenuity and good communication between the astronauts and ground control.  In short, experimental new age of discovery, taking small steps, that had accidents along the way.

B)  A hidden conspiracy by unknown characters, buying the silence somehow of hundreds of thousands of experts, keeping them from telling anyone else (including their wives and family) even well after the Apollo missions were over and even after the USSR collapsed.  Things going well is evidence of this conspiracy, and things going poorly is evidence of this conspiracy.  It would have either been better if everything went drastically wrong, or everything went perfectly as planned.  Regardless, in spite of this vast overpowering conspiracy, they still are careless enough to leave traces that any teenager sitting in front of his computer could figure out, including mistakes in photography, engineering, etc.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 18, 2012, 04:05:49 PM
  Emma, I have never believed  Richard Hoaxland. He is a sincere, good old jolly chap, has hair, which is a nice fact in itself, but doesn`t have a ruler that would let him draw a line between reality and a fairy tale. Hoagland is similar to John Lear, who is also a nice fellow, interesting, amusing and loves to mix facts with unicorns. But these 2 fellows don`t radiate a  single yota of evil . Neither does Kaysing. And Kaysing admitting  that he had lied, is beyond my ability to grasp.
 Someone also mentioned that US won`t need an RD-180 replacement, for it is good enough to outsource it to Energomash.  But I want the jobs to return to the US., the  meaningful jobs. Jobs in droves that would involve mechanical engineering.  Whenever you outsource a single component abroad, it is simply killing me,. Buell, Kodak, Oldsmobile, Plymouth, Saturn,  the endless list of engineering jobs evaporating goes on and on. How do you plan to support purchasning power of your nation if avoiding jobs of measurable added value?
 You see, had US been abundant in all mechanical engineering fields of  mass manufacturing such as consumer electronics, trucks,trains, industrial robots, cars, workbenches, etc, showing a fierce competition in diversity, fit and finish,  reliability nad complexity , I would have never gone into checking moonhoax theory at all. never. Sorry, if I omitted many answers, I can`t catch up.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 18, 2012, 04:07:46 PM
  Emma, I have never believed  Richard Hoaxland. He is a sincere, good old jolly chap, has hair, which is a nice fact in itself, but doesn`t have a ruler that would let him draw a line between reality and a fairy tale.

...Buh?   :o

Now that one took me aback.  I'm assuming it's humor.

Anyways, I still stick by my previous post.


EDITED:

Quote
You see, had US been abundant in all mechanical engineering fields of  mass manufacturing such as consumer electronics, trucks,trains, industrial robots, cars, workbenches, etc, showing a fierce competition in diversity, fit and finish,  reliability nad complexity , I would have never gone into checking moonhoax theory at all.

Er, the US has been quite innovative.  You do realize that there's a difference between capitalizing on mass manufacturing and actually inventing whole new designs, right?

Not that I wish to denigrate the East in their own contributions, but most of them came relatively recently, more within the last few decades as they found their specialties.

Also, Berkeley is proving whole new ideas every day... are you going to ignore that?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 18, 2012, 04:08:54 PM
A man who claims the media is being controlled and people are being killed to keep the hoax quiet, yet uses that media to publish his stuff and openly publishes his address? Why are the 'feds' so incompetent they can't silence a man who gives them his calling card?!

The irony so succinctly described. Yep, an evil controlling media magnet protecting the government produces a documentary on one of the biggest networks in the world (FOX). All those people killed to prevent the hoax becoming public knowledge, yet the CIA cannot manage to kill Grandfather Bill and Uncle Ralph, despite them leading loner hermit lives and being easily waxed. At the same time, they allow an illegal alien entry into the US on several occasions (Jarrah). Damn, with that track record, I'm surprised the hoax took so long to surface.  :o
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tedward on June 18, 2012, 04:09:20 PM
Here is a video of NASA tampering with pictures. I would ask you to ignore the whole video, as it  is not convincing at all, except, please stop at 10:11 and tell me what is that you see there?



Snippy snip snip video. You ever seen the difference in video formats, blown up digital picture, looked at analogue vs digital signals?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 18, 2012, 04:13:20 PM
  Emma, I have never believed  Richard Hoaxland. He is a sincere, good old jolly chap, has hair, which is a nice fact in itself, but doesn`t have a ruler that would let him draw a line between reality and a fairy tale.

Did you read that link?  It was about compression artefacts, which you are arguing show something suspicious, not Hoagland.


Quote
But these 2 fellows don`t radiate a  single yota of evil . Neither does Kaysing. And Kaysing admitting  that he had lied, is beyond my ability to grasp.

Oh dear, oh dear.


BTW, has everyone seen this?


 
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 18, 2012, 04:17:00 PM
BTW, has everyone seen this?
Bahahaha!  Saving this one to favorites.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 18, 2012, 04:17:26 PM
BTW, has everyone seen this?

Sorry, I know he's a bit like Marmite, but this is good too (Brian Cox speaks on the moonhoax (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE)).
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 18, 2012, 04:18:05 PM
And Kaysing admitting  that he had lied, is beyond my ability to grasp.

That is your problem, not ours.

Quote
But I want the jobs to return to the US., the  meaningful jobs.

Well whoop-de-doo. No-one who actually decides how the US spends its money is under any obligation to agree with you. If NASA or any other organisation is charged with designing a rocket within a certain budget and they can save money on the engine, they will. As nice as it would be to have it all home-grown, if there's a viable cheaper alternative that allows them to put more money into real innovation in other areas, only an idiot would refuse to take it as long as the option is there.
 
Quote
Sorry, if I omitted many answers, I can`t catch up.

And since YOU are the one who threw in all the various arguments that are being discussed here, who exactly is it who caused you to run into that problem?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 18, 2012, 04:19:13 PM
Hey, advanced.  Here's one question I want you to answer.  Please do so:

How would they have faked the telemetry going to the moon?  The radio waves that anyone could have picked up on, and many did, which was accurately pinpointed and traceable?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 18, 2012, 04:20:18 PM
Hey, advanced.  Here's one question I want you to answer.

Hey, don't get carried away. That means him answering a question.  ;D
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 18, 2012, 04:21:16 PM
Jay, You have worked on 787 Delayliner...

Please by all means continue to adopt this insulting and childish tone.  It will make you seem so much more credible when you protest about your allegedly shabby treatment.

Quote
...yet you tell me to go study photography, implying that the picture still in the video at 10;11 is ok. But it is not.

Since you have no applicable training or experience, I do not accept your judgment regarding what may be a video anomaly.  I have the appropriate, adjudicated training and I am easily able to recognize what your "anomaly" is.  Your inability to know this, or to accept it from someone else, is your own problem.

Quote
You can compress or unzip as often you like...

Neither of those processes employs the discrete cosine transform, which is clearly what's responsible for the artifact you identify.

Quote
As to Russian scientists talking about  Apollo 11 star recollection, I can post the whole video, if you want, but it is unfortunately in Russian.

I asked you to cite you references.  Please do so or withdraw the claim.

Quote
Anyway, seems strange that I have been researching and loving aviation since childhood...

Please stop going off on tangents.  I have asked what your academic and professional qualifications are, such that you can credibly criticize the U.S. space program and its attendant industries.  So far you're dancing around the subject without answering my questions.  Please provide your credentials and/or professional experience immediately.

Quote
And when you said that Kaysing bluntly lied, and that he made stuff up, I can`t believe it. I simply can`t.

It's on video, coming out of his mouth.  My friend, producer John Flynn, found it.  Transcripts of the same interview have been widely available for years.

Quote
It is beyond my power to believe that Kaysing would have lied.

And that is why nothing anyone says here has made, or will ever make, the slightest difference to you.  You have picked your prophets and you cling to them with religious faith.

Quote
My disbelief in US moonlandings actually comes from another aspect, but it is a seperate discussion. it deals with 2 issues- extremely complex engineering.

That happens to be what I do for a living.  Proceed with your case.

Quote
For me the reliabilty of the whole Apollo project + its complexity, is somewhat suspicious.

But you have no relevant qualifications or expertise, so your opinion is irrelevant.

Quote
Imagine after the demise of Apolo project, those great engineers should have...

"If I ran the zoo."  Please get it through your head that the world simply does not have to operate the way you ignorantly suppose it should.

Quote
And don`t be that agressive...

As long as you continue to accuse my industry of widescale fraud with no more evidence than your ignorant supposition, I will be as aggressive as I care to be.

Put up or shut up.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 18, 2012, 04:42:24 PM
But I want the jobs to return to the US., the meaningful jobs. Jobs in droves that would involve mechanical engineering.

Fine, but that's an economic and political argument, not so much a technical one.  You want to say that Apollo must have been fake because the world aerospace industry didn't evolve subsequently the way you say it should have in the wake of an Apollo success.  That's eminently specious because market and political forces determine that.

Quote
I would have never gone into checking moonhoax theory at all.

No, the problem is that you're clearly motivated to believe the Moon landing hoax theory by social, political, and economic factors.  You are simply now trying to pretend that there is a body of technical evidence that confirms what you've desired to believe, because you know that ultimately a faked Apollo would have to manifest itself in the technical record.  You're now scouring the record trying to post-justify an existing belief.  The problem is that you're being guided by dishonest, non-technical authors, all the while pretending that it's you who knows the least thing about the industry.

Quote
Sorry, if I omitted many answers, I can`t catch up.

Don't insult us by apologizing for that.  You dumped a Gish Gallop of host claims on us, and now you're complaining because you can't keep up with our response to them.  Cry me a river.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 18, 2012, 04:58:01 PM
Hey, advanced.  Here's one question I want you to answer.  Please do so:

How would they have faked the telemetry going to the moon?  The radio waves that anyone could have picked up on, and many did, which was accurately pinpointed and traceable?

Quoting myself, because I don't want my question to get lost in the deluge of other people's comments.  I want an answer to this.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 18, 2012, 04:59:51 PM
Couldn`t you simultaneously add even more questions? ...  long rant snipped


so basically what you're trying to say is "If I ran the zoo..."
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 18, 2012, 05:00:31 PM
Don't insult us by apologizing for that.  You dumped a Gish Gallop of host claims on us, and now you're complaining because you can't keep up with our response to them.  Cry me a river.

One possible compromise is to review the thread, and pick out several questions that advancedboy should focus on. He must provide a technical account outlying his evidence of fakery, and he he must present it with rigor and citation. I have asked him to do this for radiation, and he cites Jarrah White. If he strays into another socio-economic-political gish gallop, then it's up to LO to deal with him. Does the forum have rules about answering questions pertaining to scientific proof?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 18, 2012, 05:09:06 PM
I also have this feeling that most of you work for government institutions or formerly did, hence the reservedness about 9/11 simple yes/no answers.

Translation:  I'm extremely paranoid.

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 18, 2012, 05:19:47 PM
I have asked him to do this for radiation, and he cites Jarrah White.

Yeah.  Advacedboy, Jarrah is not even remotely qualified to talk about this.  He tried to debate me on that point at IMDb, failed miserably, tried to change the subject, then ran back to YouTube to complain about how he was "censored" (for posting his typical foul-mouthed rubbish, but only a few people saw what he posted so he made up a different story).  The topic on which he was invited to present for experts was his claims of space radiation.  He will talk about it only when real experts can't be allowed to comment.  In other words:  he's a charlatan and he knows it.

If you're trying to quote Jarrah White as some kind of authority on space radiation, then I have little respect for any knowledge you yourself would claim to possess.

Quote
If he strays into another socio-economic-political gish gallop, then it's up to LO to deal with him.

I'm generally opposed to negotiating special ground rules for each individual poster, because conspiracism is all about moving goalposts.  I tend to apply the same rules to everyone, as a condition of my participation:  keep it public, keep it moderated at least for decorum.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 18, 2012, 05:26:30 PM
`How would they have faked the telemetry going to the moon?  The radio waves that anyone could have picked up on, and many did, which was accurately pinpointed and traceable?`
 NASA in NASA out.  Traceable by who? Amateurs? Russians? The information could have been transmitted the same way as  as it was done by Russians , once they scared Americans by their data being transmitted from lunar probes. Funny, in that Russian film they said that Soviet ships approached US coast to  track Apollo signals, and they got heavily jammed  by US fleet. I haven`t researched this , or checked what this guy was talking in that film. His name is Youri Mukhin.  I will recheck it. I have been too lazy to go into Russian  sites to read information about Apollo, as I don`t have cyrillic keyboard. But they  should have some specialists that could provide dissection on that film.  I will recheck what specific radar stations could have been finished by Soviet Union by the end of Apollo` last missions, that could be disruptive to continuing Apollo 18, 19, etc.
 Here is the Russian film -( Jay`s requested reference)

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 18, 2012, 05:37:11 PM
Worldwide, anyone with an expensive radio could hear the telemetry.  How?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Laurel on June 18, 2012, 05:39:34 PM
If Apollo 16 wasn't manned, how did they have their unplanned conversation with Honeysuckle Creek after temporarily losing communication with Houston? How do you pre-record and fake something like that?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 18, 2012, 06:13:06 PM
NASA in NASA out.
No.  You don't get to wave your hands and say that NASA must have "somehow" faked the radio traffic because that's just what they do.

Quote
Traceable by who? Amateurs? Russians?
All of the above, and then some.

Quote
The information could have been transmitted the same way as  as it was done by Russians, once they scared Americans by their data being transmitted from lunar probes.
Or so Uncle Yuri's story goes.

The problem with unmanned relays is that it doubles the transmission time, since the interactive participants wouldn't be on the Moon and would need to have their conversation relayed up.

Quote
Here is the Russian film -(Jay`s requested reference)
I asked for a specific citation for a specific claim, and you make me sit through an hour-long Russian version of Coast To Coast AM.  Yes, I'm familiar with Yuri Mukhin; he's basically the Russian version of Jay Weidner or Bill Kaysin -- no credibility outside a few fringe conspiracy believers.  The film, after a few minutes of stock footage, is simply Mukhin making a bunch of unsubstantiated, unchallenged claims.  Do you really expect me to consider this as proof of anything?

No, I don't accept him as an authority.  Don't waste my time.  I asked for substantiation, not some old guy's speculation.  I don't take his unsubstantiated word that unnamed Russian scientists were surprised to hear the Apollo 11 crew's interpretation of star visibility.  You don't know what proof means.

Quote
Funny, in that Russian film they said that Soviet ships approached US coast to  track Apollo signals, and they got heavily jammed  by US fleet. I haven`t researched this, or checked what this guy was talking in that film.
Of course, because you've done absolutely no homework yourself.  You just ignorantly parrot conspiracy theorists and think that this will make you seem smart.  And when you're presented with factual reasons why you shouldn't just take the conspiracy theorists' word for it, you express unshakable faith in them.  You simply can't believe that they've led you astray, and you refuse to question anything they tell you.  Why are you even attempting a rational debate?  You're simply preaching a hoax gospel.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 18, 2012, 06:34:37 PM
Funny, in that Russian film they said that Soviet ships approached US coast to  track Apollo signals, and they got heavily jammed  by US fleet.

What, during the height of the cold war? Never. You mean Soviet ships approached the US coast and got jammed by the US fleet. I wonder why that was then?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 18, 2012, 06:44:45 PM
I'm generally opposed to negotiating special ground rules for each individual poster, because conspiracism is all about moving goalposts.  I tend to apply the same rules to everyone, as a condition of my participation:  keep it public, keep it moderated at least for decorum.

I thought the board had rules about answering questions. Some posters are concerned that their direct questions are going to get lost in the gish gallop, and one other poster has made a point that members are complaining about the gish gallop, but then inundating advanceboy with too many questions to avoid such a gish gallop.

However, I take the point that the gish gallop serves a purpose too. I do prefer to see a line drawn, calmness descend and then expose advanceboy for an empty vessel. If he cannot answer questions without invoking YouTube videos and unknown sources it serves as a record, and may expose further ignorance of the CT argument.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: gillianren on June 18, 2012, 06:58:56 PM
Hey, what I'm saying doesn't even ever get acknowledged.  Even to then be followed by bringing up more dubious claims instead of proper answers.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 18, 2012, 06:59:38 PM
I thought the board had rules about answering questions.

It probably does.  And as long as they apply to all posters, that's fine.  I just dislike it when individual claimants try to negotiate special rules or exceptions for themselves, or special protocols and limitations that work out to an advantage.  A poster who issues a Gish Gallop is probably going to get one in return, as a natural consequence.  In that case, I tend to favor asking the poster to select which argument he wants to pursue and holding him to it.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 18, 2012, 07:10:00 PM
In that case, I tend to favor asking the poster to select which argument he wants to pursue and holding him to it.

As was the case at the IMBd, and it worked very well in that case. The switch from solar physics to Apollo 1 was seamless - Not!  ;)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 18, 2012, 07:14:57 PM
I see the same thing happen on the debunking side too, unfortunately.  In the middle of being pinned down about, say, photo anomalies, someone will come along and say "What about the moon rocks?" thus giving the claimant a welcome change of subject.

Now that's a little justified:  a hoax theory has to be able to explain all the evidence.  But that's not worth derailing a productive line of questioning.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 18, 2012, 07:15:37 PM
...you tell me to go study photography, implying that the picture still in the video at 10;11 is ok. But it is not. You can compress or unzip as often you like, you won`t see such an anomaly around a single object within a video, while having no similar patterns  elsewhere.
This is an invalid apples-vs-images comparison. Compress and unzip are lossless compression algorithms. What originally goes in is exactly what comes out later.

But compress and zip don't work too well (if at all) on pictures, so we use entirely different forms of compression on them. Lossy compression -- what comes out is not exactly what goes in, but only something that looks very much like it provided you don't look too closely. In exchange for this slight inaccuracy, you get rid of 90% or more of the original image data. Most people consider that acceptable, and that's why JPG is so popular.

JPG works by first dividing the picture up into little squares, usually 8x8 pixels, and analyzing each one independently. Its average brightness is measured with fairly high accuracy. But the detail in the square is a different story. It is first processed with a mathematical algorithm called the discrete cosine transform, which converts it to a 2-dimensional frequency domain. Essentially it applies a set of reference patterns resembling tiny checkerboards of various sizes and shapes and says "how much does the picture look like this one?" It provides a list of coefficients that, when combined with the checkerboards, gives the original pixel values.

So far this isn't lossy. You could reverse all the steps and get exactly the original picture back. But what happens next is lossy. The coefficients are quantized, that is, their accuracy is intentionally degraded by throwing away their least significant bits. Many of them go to zero. Then the remaining coefficents are efficiently packed into the JPG file for storage and transmission.

The decompressor reverses these steps, but because the coefficients have been quantized it will regenerate pixels that won't be exactly the same as the originals. Close, but not exact. If you look very closely at them, more closely than people normally look at pictures, you'll see the effects. You are especially likely to see sharp lines between the 8x8 squares, an artifact often called blocking. With JPG this is especially common near and around sharp edges of objects -- just like the edge of Neil Armstrong's bright white suit and the black sky behind him.

So what you are seeing here are nothing more than normal, expected JPG compression artifacts. If you looked at the original digital data from the scanner, prior to JPG compression, or rescanned the original film yourself, you wouldn't see them. But the files would be huge, which is why the generally available versions of these pictures have all been JPG compressed.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 18, 2012, 07:29:16 PM
Now that's a little justified:  a hoax theory has to be able to explain all the evidence.

I am of the opinion that some of Bill Kaysing's claims were interesting and would fool the untrained or those that lacked knowledge, and his invention was quite clever, e.g. blast craters and stars being the main two. Some of his ideas such as faking rocks eluded to what NASA needed to carry out, and to this end Bill produced a story of sorts.

However, once Rene and Collier go involved, the whole thing became absurd. That's why I fail to understand how anyone can be taken in by the theory in its whole. C-rocks, waving flags and other daft ideas just make the whole idea surreal. The 'evidence' has become like one great big yarn that is so complex it's obvious how flimsy the argument has become.

It's been mentioned on the board recently, but the fidicules have to be the craziest of all ideas. I'm not sure that I follow the logic of the objects over the fidiciules and how it presents fraud. If someone can explain it to me, I would be grateful, but it is beyond me.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: raven on June 18, 2012, 07:46:48 PM
The idea I believe is that the images were allegedly composted from several component images and the cross-hairs were obscured when an image was literally cut and pasted in front.
Of course, even if it was a hoax and the mundane explanation, emulsion bleed and image compression, was false, this would be an entirely ass backwards and stupid way to do things.
Why not simply take the alleged component pictures without crosshairs, and add them as a final layer over top of everything?
Like the crater claims, if there should have been one why not add one, this doesn't make any sense even if it was a hoax.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Abaddon on June 18, 2012, 08:02:03 PM
There are now so many claims and counter claims flying around.

Settle down folks.

It is time to hold AB's feet to the flames (to quote JayUtah) point by point.

AB's purpose is best served by FUD, and so he casts FUD. Hook line and sinker, you have been had (although, jays posts have been good, the issue is that the CT has quite sucessfully trolled).

I guess my point is, nail the loon on specific issues. This scatter gun approach is of his design.

Good trolling though.

My 2 cents.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 18, 2012, 08:03:29 PM
I asked one particular question and I will stick to one particular question.  How did they fake the telemetry?

This is not elementary stuff.  This is not easy.  This is even harder than rocket science.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: twik on June 18, 2012, 08:10:40 PM
advancedboy, you say that you "cannot conceive" that Kaysing deliberately lied. Despite his own admission.

How about these men? Are they entitled to the same blind faith you put in Kaysing?

Neil Armstrong
Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin 
Charles "Pete" Conrad
Alan Bean
Alan Shepard
Edgar Mitchell
David Scott
James Irwin
John Young)
Charles Duke
Eugene Cernan
Harrison Schmitt

Why is Kaysing more believable than the above?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 18, 2012, 09:30:12 PM
You are especially likely to see sharp lines between the 8x8 squares, an artifact often called blocking.

All true, but keep in mind that this isn't apparent to most observers.  The quantization errors, depending on quality setting, produce only small differences in apparent value between adjacent zones.  The random, inept fiddling with Photoshop sliders that passes for "photo analysis" among conspiracy theorists usually results in selective contrast expansion, amplifying what the JPEG engineers intended to remain very small and largely unnoticeable.  And this is invariably attributed to some unspecified doctoring, simply because the faux-tographic analyst has no understanding of the underlying processes.

Quote
With JPG this is especially common near and around sharp edges of objects -- just like the edge of Neil Armstrong's bright white suit and the black sky behind him.

That's because JPEG engineers intended the process to apply to real-world photographs, in which there wasn't expected to be much high-frequency high-amplitude variance in any of the channels.  The black background, in order to faithfully reproduce the space suit in the same zone, has to allow some dark gray pixels where the source pixels were uniformly black.  If that zone is next to one of entirely black pixels, the contrast expansion will reveal a sharp boundary between the all-black zone and the black-and-dark-gray portions of the adjoining zone.

Quote
So what you are seeing here are nothing more than normal, expected JPG compression artifacts.

I'm always obliged to point out that JPEG, JFIF, and DCT are different things.  JPEG is the family of compression and representation techniques.  JFIF is the file format, what we call "a JPEG file."  DCT is one of the many compression algorithms available to JPEG encoders.  Not all JPEG compressions are lossy.  However, so many people prefer the small file size that nearly every JPEG-encoded image is compressed using lossy DCT.

Quote
But the files would be huge, which is why the generally available versions of these pictures have all been JPG compressed.

To those of us who have worked with image compression, transmission, and analysis for something like 20 years, and have seen thousands of these artifacts (literally), people who say they're some kind of sinister plot to suppress the truth sound literally like someone saying cars are really monsters that eat children.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Count Zero on June 18, 2012, 09:33:59 PM
Quote
moonmissions gave them a chance to make pictures without atmospheric aberation, although, they could have  done it from low-earth orbit. Since they didn`t have adaptive optics then, they could used advantage of lack of atmosphere.

It had already been done.  Long-exposure photographs of stars from space had already been taken on earlier missions.  Future-Apollo astronaut Mike Collins on Gemini X, future-Apollo astronaut Dick Gordon on Gemini XI and future-Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin on Gemini XII all took these images during their EVAs while over the night side of Earth.  Source (http://www.amazon.com/How-NASA-Learned-Fly-Space/dp/1894959078/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1340068920&sr=8-2&keywords=How+NASA+Learned+to+Fly+in+Space)

Going to the Moon was about studying the Moon.  They didn't need to waste time repeating stuff that had been done elsewhere.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 18, 2012, 10:51:10 PM
Stars- moonmissions gave them a chance to make pictures without atmospheric aberation

Since the Apollo spacecraft had very little room for storage what kind of telescope do you think they could have brought with them? Certainly nothing that could compete with a large Earth-based telescope. So what would be the point? Besides, the American taxpayers paid for the astronauts to explore the Moon, not take pictures of tiny points of light in the sky that look the same from Earth anyway.

Quote
they could used advantage of lack of atmosphere.

They would be trading the resolving power of the large Earth-based telescopes for small telescopes that would fit inside the CM. Any advantage gained by being outside of the atmosphere would be lost.

Quote
I can`t fathom Apollo missions.  Even if it means for you that I am ignorant fool. So be it.

If I had a dime for every hoax believer that was proud of their ignorance...
 
Quote
I sense, that it might be that some former astronaut is even here in these forums

That would be fantastic... but I doubt it.

Quote
I also have this feeling that most of you work for government institutions or formerly did,

I've never worked for any government, certainly not an American government.

Quote
hence the reservedness about 9/11 simple yes/no answers.

My objection to your 9/11 comments is that it is off topic in this section of the forum, and also that you seem to think that if we disagree with your beliefs on the subject then we must not have researched it. Consider this possibility: we disagree with your beliefs on the subject because we have researched it.

Quote
-And Emma, I didn`t break any rules on that forum, as I posted the moonhoax ideas in off-topic section.

I don't know how that forum works, but if it's anything like this one then posting something off-topic is a violation of the rules.

Quote
Another question, when do Americans plan to drop RD-180 in favour of their own design?

He's some advice for you, simpleboy. If you don't like having everyone swamp you with questions then stop starting new irrelevant lines of discussion and focus on the ones that are actually relevant to the subject of the forum.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 18, 2012, 10:59:36 PM
Here's another comment on the whole "why didn't they just take photos?" thing:  That would be the deal of probes and specialized satellites.  They were interested in the moon.  You have to specialize on these missions; you only go for generalization when you have plenty of room and don't plan on returning for a very long time.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: DataCable on June 18, 2012, 11:00:32 PM
1. Relevance of stars  in photography. If the moon missions were real, they wouldn`t bother about stars, the stars would be simply all over the pictures.
Question posed yesterday, please answer:

What is the minimum exposure time required to image Sirius on Ektachrome EF film at f/2.8?


Quote
The problem is that you can`t pretend to fly to the moon on monday, and present starfield that was photographed a month ago, because position of the sun in the photographs and the consequent shadows would change as well.
So what if I were to show you nine photos taken from the surface of the moon showing Venus in exactly the position relative to the earth it should be for the time they were taken?

Quote
2. Photographing stars. One could assume that the surface albedo is enough to enlighten the spacecraft and astronauts even if the sun is right behind them.
Surface albedo of the moon has absolutely nothing to do with photographing stars.


Stars- moonmissions gave them a chance to make pictures without atmospheric aberation
Y'know what wavelength of light Earth's atmosphere is really good at blocking?  UV.  Y'know what wavelength the Schmidt camera taken to the moon on Apollo 16 operated in?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: peter eldergill on June 18, 2012, 11:12:57 PM
What arrogance to assume that every poster on the internet is American, and hence is an American government shill. Now perhaps a Canadian government shill, like Lunar Orbit, is up to no good whist eating his Tally Ho double beef basket, but then those Canadians.......

BTW Gillian, I for one read your posts, even if others don't :)

Pete
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: gillianren on June 18, 2012, 11:27:23 PM
Thanks, Pete.  I'm perfectly aware I'm not a scientist, but Apollo conspiracism doesn't just fall down on scientific grounds.  Unfortunately, all the documents were written in either Science or Bureaucracy, so my grammar skills are of no use.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 18, 2012, 11:30:23 PM
Lunar Orbit, is up to no good whist eating his Tally Ho double beef basket

Ooooo... now I know what I'm having for dinner tomorrow. :)

Quote
BTW Gillian, I for one read your posts, even if others don't :)

I read Gillianren's posts, that's how I learned to spell.

I hope no one thinks that I'm ignoring them because I haven't responded to their posts or moderation reports. I'll often read them while I'm at work and intend to reply when I get home, but I'm sometimes forgetful about such things. And admittedly I'll also sometimes just skim through threads and miss things.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 18, 2012, 11:32:16 PM
What is the minimum exposure time required to image Sirius on Ektachrome EF film at f/2.8?

Just FYI, the Biogon lenses on the EVA cameras would only open to f/5.6.

Quote
So what if I were to show you nine photos taken from the surface of the moon showing Venus in exactly the position relative to the earth it should be for the time they were taken?

Gee, that would be pretty cool!  ;D  Especially since the image of Venus was only recently discovered in them.  By one of my good friends.   ::)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 18, 2012, 11:33:12 PM
Thanks, Pete.  I'm perfectly aware I'm not a scientist...

That's what makes your opinion so valuable around here.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 18, 2012, 11:33:38 PM
My Atom.  JayUtah used smileys.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 18, 2012, 11:40:43 PM
Regarding the lament for American aerospace, if you're Latvian, why would you care so much that Joe F American gets the job building the rocket rather than Yuri P Russi?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 18, 2012, 11:45:07 PM
Quote
So what if I were to show you nine photos taken from the surface of the moon showing Venus in exactly the position relative to the earth it should be for the time they were taken?

Gee, that would be pretty cool!  ;D  Especially since the image of Venus was only recently discovered in them.  By one of my good friends.   ::)

From the old forum:
Missing planetoid (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=theories&thread=995&post=28309), discovered by DataCable on April 19, 2007. :)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: AtomicDog on June 19, 2012, 12:50:52 AM
Ah, yes, probably my favorite hb beatdown.

Good times, good times.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: scooter on June 19, 2012, 01:23:16 AM
This thread has become an excellent example of a debate between one who "believes" vs a number of people who "know".

Sure, when looked at superficially, which is the lens that advancedboy uses, Apollo seems unbelievable. The technical acheivements seem miraculous, impossible. But when looked at from a technical and systems engineering viewpoint, it was "just" a very big exercise in mission design and systems engineering. Enormous problems to solve, often with real outside-the-box thinking.

Meanwhile, for advancedboy...you probably feel you are being treated harshly and abruptly by those here. Fact is, you have denigrated the reputations of many thousands of people who literally put their lives into the Apollo program. Defaming these great people is bad enough, but doing so from your admitted standpoint of ignorant incredulity is unforgivable. You don't understand the science, you don't even understand the evidence. The science behind the program does exist, and it's what many folks do routinely on a daily basis. There are mountains of evidence available. Their impersonal responses to your ignorant incredulity are simply that...you simply have no clue of the subject you are attempting to discuss, and they are letting you know that. That you cannot "believe" that it happened carries exactly no weight at all. Apollo is not a question of believing.

Your "photographic evidence" has been shredded by real experts in the field here. Everything else you've come up with was mere handwaving. Do you have anything new to offer?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 19, 2012, 01:54:05 AM
Y'know what wavelength of light Earth's atmosphere is really good at blocking?  UV.  Y'know what wavelength the Schmidt camera taken to the moon on Apollo 16 operated in?
The earth's atmosphere actually blocks most of the electromagnetic spectrum; only the visible light and lower microwave radio portions are left pretty much untouched. See:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RemoteSensing/remote_04.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_electromagnetic_opacity.svg

Ultraviolet, especially far UV, is pretty much completely blocked by oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3). Or it was, until we started to destroy the ozone layer with chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs or "Freons").

Water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) each take out large chunks of the near infrared spectrum and even more of the far IR. This is important because objects near room temperature, like the earth, emit their heat mainly in the far IR. Burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2, absorbing more far IR and forcing the earth to warm up to radiate away all the heat it absorbs from the sun.

Water and CO2 are the primary greenhouse gases mainly because they're so abundant. But any gas that absorbs far IR and persists in the atmosphere is also a "greenhouse gas". Some are even more opaque to far IR, or block spectral "windows" that would otherwise get through CO2 and H2O. Examples include methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and most of the CFCs that also destroy the ozone layer. The most potent greenhouse gas known is sulfur hexafluouride, SF6. It's estimated that releasing one tonne of SF6 will have the same effect on global warming over a century as 22,800 tonnes of CO2.

Everything from the far IR to the upper microwave region is totally blocked by water. Even the lower microwave frequencies used by satellites can occasionally be blocked by unusually heavy rain, the higher frequencies more so than the lower ones. A few narrow segments of the otherwise usable microwave bands are completely blocked by oxygen absorption, e.g., 60 GHz and 120 GHz.

And finally, below a certain frequency in the HF (high frequency) radio band the ionosphere becomes as reflective as a shiny piece of metal. This frequency varies with incidence angle and solar activity, and while ionospheric reflection keeps us from receiving them from space, it also enables world-wide shortwave radio communication without the use of relay satellites. ("High frequency" is entirely relative. HF is from 3-30 MHz, well below the "microwave" range that starts above 1,000 MHz. That's in the middle of the 300-3,000 MHz UHF (ultra high frequency) band.)

So given that the atmosphere is opaque in so much of the spectrum, it makes absolutely no sense to go all the way to the moon and do astrophotography in visible light with small hand-held cameras. To be worth the expensive trip a space telescope should either:

a) operate in one of the spectral bands where our atmosphere is opaque, e.g., Apollo 16's far UV telescope, or

b) operate in visible light with a resolution considerably better than that allowed by atmospheric dispersion ("seeing") from the earth's surface. That means a big (most definitely not hand-held) telescope such as the Hubble with its 2.4 meter mirror.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: gillianren on June 19, 2012, 02:37:03 AM
I read Gillianren's posts, that's how I learned to spell.

So you won't take it amiss if I point out that you've just used a run-on?  You need more than a comma to combine those two sentences; the technical term there is "comma splice."  (Sorry; couldn't resist.)

Quote
I hope no one thinks that I'm ignoring them because I haven't responded to their posts or moderation reports. I'll often read them while I'm at work and intend to reply when I get home, but I'm sometimes forgetful about such things. And admittedly I'll also sometimes just skim through threads and miss things.

Trust me, LO, if I thought you were ignoring me, you would hear a lot more complaints.

Thanks, Pete.  I'm perfectly aware I'm not a scientist...

That's what makes your opinion so valuable around here.

Aw . . . .

No, but there's a logic to that, though I'm not sure everyone sees it.  I am able to point out when the arguments get too esoteric.  I am also able to give the perspective of those looking at it from a lay perspective, which is valuable to experts in any field.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 19, 2012, 02:38:46 AM
All true, but keep in mind that this isn't apparent to most observers.
Exactly. The whole idea of lossy compression is to keep only the most important elements of a picture and throw away everything you're unlikely to notice in normal viewing. These "photo analysts" are doing the exact opposite, throwing away all that's important and looking at the crud that's left.

I wonder how these guys would look for "hidden clues" in an ordinary mounted photographic print. They'd probably scrape the print off with a razor blade and focus a microscope on the residual glue patterns underneath. After all, that is information of a sort, deliberately hidden deep in the picture. Maybe you can even deduce from it the identity, mood and entire life history of the guy who mounted the print. And if he's an astronaut you could tell if he's really telling the truth about seeing stars in space.
Quote
That's because JPEG engineers intended the process to apply to real-world photographs, in which there wasn't expected to be much high-frequency high-amplitude variance in any of the channels.
True again. Other compression schemes are better suited to non-natural images such as line drawings, sketches, doodles, cartoons, etc, with relatively few distinct pixel values and large areas of exactly the same pixel value. GIF, for example.
Quote
I'm always obliged to point out that JPEG, JFIF, and DCT are different things.
Also true. I used JPEG because that's the term people know. I specifically described the DCT-based lossy compression scheme nearly always associated in practice with image files having the ".jpg" suffix.
Quote
To those of us who have worked with image compression, transmission, and analysis for something like 20 years, and have seen thousands of these artifacts (literally), people who say they're some kind of sinister plot to suppress the truth sound literally like someone saying cars are really monsters that eat children.
I know. The metaphor of examining the lint in your navel and thinking it actually means something is not very original, but I can't think of one that better captures the absurdity and pointlessness of the whole exercise.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 19, 2012, 02:43:27 AM
No, but there's a logic to that, though I'm not sure everyone sees it.  I am able to point out when the arguments get too esoteric.  I am also able to give the perspective of those looking at it from a lay perspective, which is valuable to experts in any field.
Well, I see it. Those sorts of comments are indeed very useful.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 19, 2012, 02:47:00 AM
Jay, it is the dwindling US precision manufacturing, that puzzles me. It is the fact that Airbus takes a bigger and bigger slice out of Boeing`s pie. It is that every next generation civil aircraft Boeing makes  , has less and less domestic engineering, accounting for 787 only 35%. What is the next generation Boeing going to look like, like 20% of domestic engineering? All companies in US have a similar pattern - resorting to extreme outsourcing, which leads to rebadging an import product, and finally, the bankruptcy. It is the diversity of Russian aviation, it  is those An -158, Tu-334, Tu-204, MC-21, Su-100, Su-80,  and plethora of other airframes that show inventiveness of russian engineers and ability to execute such ariframes  under limited budget. The same is  in helicopter industry- mil-38, now the under constructiom Mil-54,  also ka -62,  Kazan Ansat, and various more projects where I see how the legacy  of aviation engineering is carried on. Even after a collapse  of Soviet Union , none of design bureaus died, maybe Yakovlev would be drastically downsized. While US had only 2 large civil aircraft manufacturers, and having no real crises, one of them had to go.  I see this engineering pattern in all US industries- consolidation, consolidation, until there is only one player, which then is wiped out by imports. I don`t see a big difference from Boeing endlessly unpgrading an old 737 , or Bell upgrading endlessly old fuselages to Harley-Davidson,  or Bose or Apple ( poor product diversity, innovation and quality purely by outsourcing). The same goes to car industry. All the companies that show healthy ability to grow show an interesting ability to engineer majority of complex components internally. it  is clearly seen with Germans, Japanese, and now even South Koreans, it is exactly the opposite with US.  And it is exactly crawling into aviation and space  industry. How does it apply to moonlanding credibility. Well, if already 40 years ago they had an ability  to execute such superbly complex engineering feats, they would have gone further and further, increasing complexity even more. You can clearly see how it is done by Nissan that constructed the GT-R. And the secret of their engineering ability- engineering through accumulation of DOMESTIC expertize. The same is for Sony, the most complex , expertize driven components are in-house, in Japan designed. Japanese don`t outsource to foreign companies, especially if it  is a matter of complex engineering expertise. The exception would apply to japanese aviation, referring to construction of their cargo plane, akin to C-17, but only because their aviation is in rookie status comparably to US. Observe how japanese addd and add and add new models every year, more and more diversity. Us is so much relying on hit or miss products, that I doubt they have enough engineeering capacity to execute manifold complex tasks. While Apollo proved it was quiet easily done, in a comparably short period of time. And considering todays computers offer so much  improvement over what was available then. Of course Us has a lot of great ideas, but many great ideas were simply suffocated before finalised- RAH-66, X-33, etc.  After all these years of triumphant Apollo missions why do  we still stand here with RD-180 and  a tiny replica of Space Shuttle projected for next missions. is it really just the budget issue?
 And I don`t denounce astronauts as cowards or hoaxers, it was not up to them to decide. And it was not up to many great engineers who contributed to that project, and it would be  not their decision.....
 Time will only tell, and as time goes, and US extrnal debt accumulates  beyond  reason, so will shrink NASA budget. All I expect  then is more sloppiness to appear, which will finally lead to  leakage  to more information on Apollo.  Kinda Tonkin incident from space to put in a poor analogy.That is my belief.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Zakalwe on June 19, 2012, 02:56:33 AM
Jay, it is the ..............
<rambling snipped>

Again with the gish-gallop.

Get back on track and please answer the questions that you have been asked.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 19, 2012, 03:22:16 AM
All I expect  then is more sloppiness to appear, which will finally lead to  leakage  to more information on Apollo.

It would be fascinating to know how they, against all reason, physics, etc., managed to fake it, and their justification for spending so much money on a rocket that didn't actually go to the moon (if you're going to build it anyways...)

Quote
That is my belief.

I do not deal in faith, I deal in facts.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 19, 2012, 03:33:45 AM
Jay, it is the dwindling US precision manufacturing, that puzzles me.

None of which has anything to do with whether or not Apollo happened.

Quote
And I don`t denounce astronauts as cowards or hoaxers, it was not up to them to decide. And it was not up to many great engineers who contributed to that project, and it would be  not their decision.....

Oh no, don't you dare try and wriggle your way out of it that way. You are claiming the astronauts went along with a great fraud. You ARE calling them cowards and liars. After all, if one of them was a brave truth-teller the whole fraud would be exposed. Therefore everyone who worked on Apollo and knew it was supposedly fake is, according to you, a cowardly liar, willing to go along with it rather than expose the truth and stand up for principles of integrity.

YOU are a coward and a liar, without even the moral fibre to stand behind your own arguments and accusations. Pathetic.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 19, 2012, 04:15:24 AM
I read Gillianren's posts, that's how I learned to spell.

So you won't take it amiss if I point out that you've just used a run-on?  You need more than a comma to combine those two sentences; the technical term there is "comma splice."  (Sorry; couldn't resist.)

I only learned to spell. I'm still working on the grammar. ;)

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 19, 2012, 04:16:04 AM
You don't understand the science, you don't even understand the evidence.
It should be understood that no one is (or should be) ever judged harshly merely for not understanding the science or the evidence.

The most expert person you know came out of his or her mother just like everyone else: naked, crying, utterly helpless and ignorant. Everyone spends years learning the basic skills generally expected of all modern humans, e.g, speaking, reading and writing a natural language. A few people chose to spend many more years (and usually a lot of money) learning a lot of optional stuff, such as most of the accumulated knowledge of a particular scientific discipline. Some of them then choose to spend their lives trying to add to that knowledge; they become scientists. Some spend their lives conveying this knowledge to others; they are teachers. Some decide to apply this scientific knowledge to finding new ways to satisfy some human want or need like transportation, communications, food production or thousands of other things; they're engineers.  Most people select another of the thousands of ways to be useful in the world, or even create their own way. People are amazingly diverse.

So I at least try not to fault anyone simply for not knowing something. They probably know a lot I don't know. But I will fault someone who demands to be taken seriously about something despite an admitted or evident lack of relevant knowledge.

So for someone like advancedboy to claim he's absolutely certain that Apollo was hoaxed, and that we should respect him for it, when almost in the same breath he admits to knowing next to nothing about it or the relevant physics, engineering, math or even history, that gets me pretty steamed.

If you don't have the background to form an informed position on something, and if you're unwilling to trust those who do have it, it seems only proper to simply withhold judgment -- especially if you're not willing to properly defend your position or learn the necessary material. It's a huge insult to insist on being taken as seriously as a real expert in a field while also deprecating those same experts and everything they invested in their positions.





Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 19, 2012, 04:23:33 AM
Indeed. Ignorance is fine and nothing to be ashamed of. However, nor is it something to be proud of, and wilfully remaining ignorant while professing to be able to discuss the subject sensibly is simply ridiculous behaviour and deserves to incur the ire of those who have spent the time learning about the subject so they can talk about it in detail.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 19, 2012, 04:33:26 AM
Excellently put, ka9q.

I agree with Jason, too.  (But then, I almost always do...)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 19, 2012, 04:51:37 AM
advancedboy, you seem very concerned about a perceived decline in the state of US science, engineering design and manufacturing.

You know what? I share your concern though I don't want to overstate it. We could be a lot worse off; after all, which country sponsored the technologies that we're using to communicate right now? But I do want my country to lead the world in science and engineering and all the good things that come from them (which excludes weapons, one of the few markets where we still seem to have a positive trade balance).

Now, do you know why this problem has been developing over the past few decades? I think I know one of the causes: a streak of anti-intellectualism that has pervaded the United States throughout its entire history, waxing and waning over time. It probably reached a low in the several decades after WW2 when scientific and technological development arguably reached an all-time peak in human history. It has resurged in the past 30+ years, roughly coinciding with the end of the US Apollo program and an ideological shift by the federal government away from publicly funded basic scientific research. But that may just be a coincidence.

What are some of the manifestations of this American anti-intellectualism? There are many, but two stand out to me. The first is fundamentalist opposition to the teaching of evolution, the backbone of modern biology. And the other is the surprisingly tenacious, wholly irrational belief of some that the United States faked the Apollo moon landing program. This belief has often been cited to illustrate a major failure of the American educational system, primarily in science and math programs. I agree.

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 19, 2012, 04:54:29 AM
And I just went into a logical spiral there.  I need to avoid forums at one in the morning!

I agree you can't blame someone for their ignorance -- all of us are ignorant about something (actually, about most things; it is hard to be well-versed in more than a handful of subjects).  But can you blame them for willful ignorance either?  Because that's the very nature of Dunning-Kruger effect as described; being ignorant that one is ignorant.  You could hardly be called "willfully ignorant" if, from your point of view, you understand the subject quite well enough, right?

It is a puzzlement.  I think of it as parallel to what Feyman was saying in his famous address.  The hardest skill to learn, sometimes, is the skill in detecting when you have to stop, back away, switch off the machine, and find someone who can show you how to use it correctly before you kill yourself with it.

I dunno.  Maybe the best pedagogical tool is to resist being drawn into the same kinds of general statements, vague assertions, simplified analogies and the like that are within the hoax believer/Dunning-Kruger victim's comfort zone, and confront them with direct numerical challenges to their skill.

Like the question above about shutter speed for the Hassie in order to capture even a single bright star.  This isn't a "Well, maybe the Soviets felt this way but didn't say anything officially" kind of question.  It is a question that has a numeric answer.  You can either do it, or you can confront the idea that perhaps there IS a skill there.  And you don't have it.

Or so are my thoughts at way past bedtime, when my own ability to critique my own thinking is basically at zero!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 19, 2012, 05:08:58 AM
nomuse, I have been pounding on the mathematical theme myself, especially when I spar with Hunchbacked over on Youtube.

He constantly compares himself with Galileo (a classic crank gambit). But Galileo had this to say about mathematics and science:

Quote
Philosophy [now better known as 'physical science' - ka9q] is written in this grand book — I mean the universe — which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth.
This is most eloquent statement I've ever read about science, yet my friend Hunchbacked seems completely immune to it (and to the irony of his self-comparison). He almost never uses math or makes a quantitative argument, and he ignores mine. You can't get anywhere with someone like that.


Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tedward on June 19, 2012, 05:23:12 AM
And I don`t denounce astronauts as cowards or hoaxers, it was not up to them to decide. And it was not up to many great engineers who contributed to that project, and it would be  not their decision.....
 Time will only tell, and as time goes, and US extrnal debt accumulates  beyond  reason, so will shrink NASA budget. All I expect  then is more sloppiness to appear, which will finally lead to  leakage  to more information on Apollo.  Kinda Tonkin incident from space to put in a poor analogy.That is my belief.


Actually, I think that a hoax scenario would have have people running for the hills. This was not a tin pot country where your relatives were taken away or threatened and you were forced to do the deed under the pain of death. If you were an engineer and asked to participate in this, I think the more likely scenario would be the engineers and scientists would walk away. You would end up with people not qualified fumbling through it and then your chums would be able to find evidence. Unlike now.

The problem is the legacy says it was people with the qualifications and ability to do so. You see, to fake it, they have a dark secret that will be with them for the rest of their lives. Someone finds out, secret is out and these people are now known as frauds and liars. This crops up then on your resumé. Professional pride dented, the few engineers I have met are very driven and, well, professional.

This all extends down, you cannot have someone who has trouble building a lego set constructing something that will be tested and proven and left for posterity for other engineers to examine. This is where your and your chums fall over.

Time has told, people can examine the legacy.

I believe you have a few questions from other posters outstanding.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 19, 2012, 05:24:58 AM
He never did solve the telemetry conundrum, did he?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tedward on June 19, 2012, 06:57:05 AM
The telemetry, and even as I am not an engineer or scientist, is quite easy to see why it is a problem for the hoax.
You do not have to start to look at it for long with a HB hat on to see the holes in the situation. The comms from up there to down here provide some theory holes that cannot be plugged. Well, they can be plugged, you do it for real.

When I say HB hat on, I mean trying to think it through as if it was a hoax. What would you have to do compared to what we know.

And glued sand. That is still tickling me.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 19, 2012, 07:21:03 AM
Quote
The telemetry, and even as I am not an engineer or scientist, is quite easy to see why it is a problem for the hoax.
You do not have to start to look at it for long with a HB hat on to see the holes in the situation. The comms from up there to down here provide some theory holes that cannot be plugged. Well, they can be plugged, you do it for real.



I know, I know.  It's only the billionth time I've posted it, but it needs to be reposted time and time again.

Even that hack Mitchell is showing up how idiotic the whole conspiracy theory is.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tedward on June 19, 2012, 07:35:31 AM
 ;D

Not seen that before.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 19, 2012, 07:43:17 AM
`Actually, I think that a hoax scenario would have have people running for the hills. This was not a tin pot country where your relatives were taken away or threatened and you were forced to do the deed under the pain of death. If you were an engineer and asked to participate in this, I think the more likely scenario would be the engineers and scientists would walk away. You would end up with people not qualified fumbling through it and then your chums would be able to find evidence. Unlike now.`
Noone is forced  or was. The same as banks don`t coerce  anyone to take  a loan. Once you have signed a contract, the tune can change.  Not all the engineers knew what was going on,  it was on the basis of compartmentalisation.  And people don`t walk away from good paychecks. It wasn`t started as a hoax most likely. It probably was an honest attempt to build a genuine moon programm. I guess superb complexity of movements that could fail, coupled with many other problems such as real lift capability of F-1, reentry in atmosphere at high speeds, Van Allen belts, solar flares,. Besides the time limit is phenomenally short. Remember how many years it took  to build aircraft like  F-22Raptor, or JSF, or YF-23. These programmes usually lasted at least 15 years. And even now  Raptor has so many issues, and can barely keeep up with 4+ generation Sukhoi 27 derivatives in maneouverability.  I don`t know when was given the `go ahead`  to make the program happen at any cost even if  it demanded going out of reality. You can discredit me completely. Simply attribute to me as plane stupid or Apollo stupid, and put me into  a regular ignorant category. Why bother arguing with an idiot like me at all. I am not knowledgeable at anything dealing with tech, so  it is simple as that. You constantly prove me being wrong, so be it . I will stick with it. Why educate an idiot? Just by reading you can very simply see how regular, plain joe I am , and how ignorant of any tech field I am. So keep on talking to each other about  equations, what Neil ate at breakfast etc. We Latvians be too stupid. I am beyond repair  regarding Apollo, and regarding Kaysing lying as well.
.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 19, 2012, 07:49:00 AM
Noone is forced  or was.

Then once it became apparent it was going to be faked, they kept on with it, sacrificing their morals and ideals for the sake of a paycheck. And you don't see how that is calling those people liars and frauds? You are blind, aren't you?

Quote
Remember how many years it took  to build aircraft like  F-22Raptor, or JSF, or YF-23. These programmes usually lasted at least 15 years.

Irrelevant. The problems of building high-performance jet aircraft with large production numbers are entirely different from the problems of building spacecraft.

Quote
You constantly prove me being wrong, so be it . I will stick with it.

Then that just marks you out as another wilfully ignorant hoax believer who can't bring himself to understand that he has the opportunity here to LEARN and will not avail himself of it.

Quote
I am beyond repair  regarding Apollo, and regarding Kaysing lying as well.

That is sad. I really mean that. Such a waste of potential.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 19, 2012, 07:58:04 AM
So you admit you don't know anything. Instead of trying to court pity for being exposed as such, why not try to learn? It is clear you are predisposed to believe in a hoax. Let go of your hate and open your eyes. Don't be a sheeple being herded around by hucksters exploiting your ignorance. Learn and understand the truth. There is no hoax, just a big bag of lunar awesomeness.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 19, 2012, 08:20:24 AM
Jay, it is the dwindling US precision manufacturing, that puzzles me. It is the fact that Airbus takes a bigger and bigger slice out of Boeing`s pie. It is that every next generation civil aircraft Boeing makes  , has less and less domestic engineering, accounting for 787 only 35%.

If you want to discuss the economics of the modern aerospace industry I'd be happy to join in at the conclusion of this discussion.  After you address the questions put to you here, start at thread in the general discussion area.  While not an economist or an industry expert, I do cover the industry for my firm as an equity analyst and have access to some resources that might be of interest in a discussion.  But the topic is irrelevant to the moon hoax and is out of topic for the tread.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 19, 2012, 08:32:43 AM
`Irrelevant. The problems of building high-performance jet aircraft with large production numbers are entirely different from the problems of building spacecraft.`
You said it. That shows how much you understand principles of precision manufacturing.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 19, 2012, 08:34:57 AM
And people don`t walk away from good paychecks.
Do you include yourself in this category? If not, tell us why not.

Quote
Why educate an idiot?

See my sig line.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 19, 2012, 08:36:45 AM
`Irrelevant. The problems of building high-performance jet aircraft with large production numbers are entirely different from the problems of building spacecraft.`
You said it. That shows how much you understand principles of precision manufacturing.

I submit that Jason knows much more about than you do.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tedward on June 19, 2012, 08:39:32 AM
`Actually, I think that a hoax scenario would have have people running for the hills. This was not a tin pot country where your relatives were taken away or threatened and you were forced to do the deed under the pain of death. If you were an engineer and asked to participate in this, I think the more likely scenario would be the engineers and scientists would walk away. You would end up with people not qualified fumbling through it and then your chums would be able to find evidence. Unlike now.`
Noone is forced  or was. The same as banks don`t coerce  anyone to take  a loan. Once you have signed a contract, the tune can change.  Not all the engineers knew what was going on,  it was on the basis of compartmentalisation.  And people don`t walk away from good paychecks. It wasn`t started as a hoax most likely. It probably was an honest attempt to build a genuine moon programm. I guess superb complexity of movements that could fail, coupled with many other problems such as real lift capability of F-1, reentry in atmosphere at high speeds, Van Allen belts, solar flares,. Besides the time limit is phenomenally short. Remember how many years it took  to build aircraft like  F-22Raptor, or JSF, or YF-23. These programmes usually lasted at least 15 years. And even now  Raptor has so many issues, and can barely keeep up with 4+ generation Sukhoi 27 derivatives in maneouverability.  I don`t know when was given the `go ahead`  to make the program happen at any cost even if  it demanded going out of reality. You can discredit me completely. Simply attribute to me as plane stupid or Apollo stupid, and put me into  a regular ignorant category. Why bother arguing with an idiot like me at all. I am not knowledgeable at anything dealing with tech, so  it is simple as that. You constantly prove me being wrong, so be it . I will stick with it. Why educate an idiot? Just by reading you can very simply see how regular, plain joe I am , and how ignorant of any tech field I am. So keep on talking to each other about  equations, what Neil ate at breakfast etc. We Latvians be too stupid. I am beyond repair  regarding Apollo, and regarding Kaysing lying as well.
.

Regards signing contracts. Secret org to perspective employee. Sign here please, we will tell you what it is about later......

Does not sound too good does it? Even if someone signed before they knew then there would be nothing to stop them leaving or exposing the sham. Do you think engineers do not network? Secret org going to take them to court.....

Compartmentalisation. Rubbish. I have a box at home. It does stuff. I do not know how it was made but I can find out. And it works, I get all the channels I want and many I do no not want. Could I make one? Not easily but I can get to understand how the components interact. Could you separate all the process apart at the factory and compartment them? Yes. What happens when all the parts are assembled? The TV still works. Thing is the end product has to work. The parts have to fit, someone making a hinge will know if the pin in it is useless and the ones attaching the hinge assembly will know if the assembly is rubbish. And so on, I do not know anything about hinges used in Apollo BTW. Compartmenting departments will not fit the hoax theory as the end product has to do the job. This leads back to that excellent video above.

And people don`t walk away from good paychecks. Have you examined this in detail? What evidence do you have that people with morals in certain circumstances do not walk, indeed, any walkers at all? Not looked at it myself so assume you have the details.

Besides the time limit is phenomenally short. Remember how many years it took  to build aircraft like  F-22Raptor, or JSF, or YF-23. These programmes usually lasted at least 15 years. And even now  Raptor has so many issues, and can barely keeep up with 4+ generation Sukhoi 27 derivatives in maneouverability.

Different things. Different situations and constraints.

I don`t know when was given the `go ahead`  to make the program happen at any cost even if  it demanded going out of reality. You can discredit me completely.

The history of how it came about is interesting. I would recommend an online book.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/contents.html

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 19, 2012, 08:42:25 AM
coupled with many other problems such as real lift capability of F-1
What's that about the F-1? You do seem to have a fascination with that particular rocket engine, can you explain why? Did you not understand the significance of the F-1's rather poor Isp of only 263 seconds? Do you know what Isp means and why it is important?

Before you go on about the F-1 not working as advertised, keep in mind that millions of people lined the beaches in person to watch the 13 Saturn V launches (actually 12 Saturn V/Apollo launches and one custom 2-stage version that launched Skylab in 1973). Hundreds of millions more watched the launches live on TV, sometimes even with knowledgeable reporter commentary. Reporters and individuals were given tours of the VAB and Pad 39. They could see and measure with their own eyes the dimensions of each stage of the rocket, the time it took to clear the launch pad, the time it took to pass Mach-1 (when very characteristic shock clouds form), and the time it took the S-IC (first stage) to exhaust its propellants and separate.

Any claims about the "true" performance of the F-1 must be consistent with every publicly observed and confirmed fact.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 19, 2012, 08:43:27 AM
No entry  to be validated. Log end.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 19, 2012, 08:45:40 AM
No entry  to be validated. Log end.

Wow, you've given up here too?  You concede that we are right and you are wrong?  Great, glad to help out.   :)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tedward on June 19, 2012, 08:49:55 AM
To add to the compartmentated thingamabob. If you had the engineers in your pocket, then no need to compartmental them shirley.

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ineluki on June 19, 2012, 08:57:17 AM
Sure, when looked at superficially, which is the lens that advancedboy uses, Apollo seems unbelievable. The technical acheivements seem miraculous, impossible. 

It's not just a lens, it's also his special angle, which pretty much ignores all other technical achievements which existed already. It's a superficial look as well, but we had nuclear power (including nuclear powered ships), rockets,  Mach3-Airplanes, we started successful hearttransplants etc





Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: raven on June 19, 2012, 09:11:06 AM
Apollo didn't happen overnight, advancedboy.

It did happen quite quickly, but when you have over 400,000 and over 170 billion dollars in today's money, things tend to come together.

There is a basic axiom of engineering.
You can do things quickly, you can do things with quality, or you can do things cheaply.
At best you can get two of the three, and Apollo went for the former two.

Its predecessors, Mercury and Gemini, showed that not only could humans survive and work in space, but also practised EVA, rendezvous, changing orbits, and docking, all of which were invaluable experience for Apollo.

Unmanned probes like Lunar Orbiter, Ranger, and Surveyor all gave much information regarding the lunar surface and scouted out potential landing sites.

While NASA had other scientific exploration programs at that time, like Mariner, Explorer, and Pioneer, much of their efforts were directed to the end of putting a man on the moon, all building toward that goal.

To quote Jim Lovell, "It's not a miracle, we just decided to go."
Title: Re: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 19, 2012, 09:16:42 AM
Fine, don't let go of your hate. See if I care.


To quote Jim Lovell, "It's not a miracle, we just decided to go."

Did Lovell actually say that or was that just in the movie?
Title: Re: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: raven on June 19, 2012, 09:19:54 AM

To quote Jim Lovell, "It's not a miracle, we just decided to go."

Did Lovell actually say that or was that just in the movie?
I've seen it quoted as him personally, though I don't know for sure.
It's a damn good quote though, laconic and to the point.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: twik on June 19, 2012, 09:22:52 AM
No entry  to be validated. Log end.

And, in keeping with other posts, an indication that he is more interested in science fiction than science.

There is, truly, no arguing with someone like this. They start, for whatever reason, from the absolute faith that Apollo is a hoax, and expect people to disprove it, while not understanding the science enough to comprehend any disproof.

As far as his obsession with American competitiveness, I suspect this is the "good friend in bad times" syndrome. He actually exults in anything he sees as a slap in the face for the US, but is trying to hide his bias by listing all the "failures" he can come up with, while adding, "And I'm SO SORRY to see this! What's wrong?"
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 19, 2012, 09:26:11 AM
No entry  to be validated. Log end.

And it was just getting to be fun!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 19, 2012, 09:31:10 AM
As far as his obsession with American competitiveness, I suspect this is the "good friend in bad times" syndrome.
Agreed, his supportive veneer was broken with a very light touch to reveal the rotten core underneath.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: raven on June 19, 2012, 09:36:40 AM
While not the most crash and burn ending I have seen on this forum by any stretch, that last post was a little odd to put it mildly. :o
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 19, 2012, 09:49:57 AM
Maybe he finally understood that his lack of a rational response validates our criticism?  Na!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 19, 2012, 10:03:15 AM
TBH I expect him to come back soon, as if nothing had happened, "And another thing...!"
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 19, 2012, 10:33:39 AM
Jay, it is the dwindling US precision manufacturing, that puzzles me.

I don't care what puzzles you.  You have no qualification or experience in the aerospace industry that you're willing to substantiate.  And none of what you've said has the slightest to do with your claims regarding Apollo.

State your qualifications.

Answer my questions.

Quote
While Apollo proved it was quiet easily done, in a comparably short period of time.

No.  Apollo development was neither short nor easy.  You don't have the experience to make that judgment credibly.  And I have already exposed your willingness to ramble about engineering you patently do not understand.

Quote
And considering todays computers offer so much  improvement over what was available then.

Irrelevant.  The 1960s is considered the golden age of aerospace, and much of it relied upon techniques developed during World War II and refined in the post-war Cold War era.  Little of that required computers.

Further, the narrowest designation of my field of expertise is computational tools for engineering.  This is what I do for a living.  You vastly oversimplify the industry.  Vastly.  Your toy notions of the aerospace industry do not support in the least your contention that Apollo was fake.

Quote
And I don`t denounce astronauts as cowards or hoaxers, it was not up to them to decide.

They claim to have gone to the Moon.  You say they did not.  They would know whether they did or not.  Therefore you are calling them liars and hoaxers.

Quote
And it was not up to many great engineers who contributed to that project...

Irrelevant.  You are saying they did not build the things they said they built.  Therefore you are calling them liars.  Trying to weasel out of the consequences of your statements does not soften them.

Kindly do not use your rambling "analysis" of the U.S. aerospace industry as a distraction from your libellous and ill-supported claims.  You have been asked several specific questions, in response to which you have simply referred to long-debunked conspiracy theorists, or simply ignored them.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: sts60 on June 19, 2012, 10:33:48 AM
advancedboy, in reply 137 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=120.msg3740#msg3740) I pointed out the characteristics of a "strong" claim, namely that such a claim must:

1. Identify an actual anomaly (not an error of understanding, personal opinion, wishful thinking, or fabrication) and explain it in terms of contributing to a hoax.
2. Explain how the "hoax" interpretation is preferable to the conventional explanation.
3. Provide some kind of evidence for the specific hoax activity.
And, at a higher level, a strong claim that Apollo was a hoax needs to:
4. Explain how the hoax makes sense in the context of the Apollo record.  This not only include the technical context, but the scientific, historical, political, budgetary, and managerial contexts as well.

I mentioned that I've never actually seen such a claim, including any of yours, and asked if you intended to advance a "strong" claim per the title of this thread you started.

Unfortunately, not only have you not done so, you're actually going the other direction.  I shouldn't have to point this out, but an implicit condition of a "strong" claim is:

0. A strong claim must be coherent, and certainly not self-contradictory.

But that is exactly what you are doing.  You praise the Saturn V and "demand" it be built, then you disparage it by making dark hints about its "real" performance.  You hold up the 100% made-in-the-USA golden age US aerospace industry as the epitome of engineering capability, yet insist it was incapable of carrying out the Apollo project.  You say you are not trying to call the astronauts liars or "hoaxers", yet say they participated in the largest fraud in history.  You complain about Boeing outsourcing work to other countries, but don't seem to grasp that Airbus was "outsourced" from the beginning as a multi-national consortium. 

If you can't put together arguments that don't contradict themselves, you won't get anywhere.  And even where you don't contradict yourself, you're all over the map.   You don't really even have a coherent claim; you just have a mess of ill-informed notions cribbed from various conspiracists and overlaid atop your own ill-informed certitude.

And that's before even getting to all the individual problems with your claims.  In addition to the errors and logical fallacies I referenced in my earlier post linked above, you keep making additional mistakes, waving your hands about new sub-conspiracies, and in the midst of making some good points about competitiveness and innovation, demonstrate a failure to grasp how large engineering projects work, how market forces drive corporate strategies and mergers, how national priorities develop, and in general make a lot of noise about things you only partially grasp to pretend that they somehow support a hoax. 

Worse, you slavishly attend proven liars and incompetents - saying you'd literally trust them with your life - while dismissing actual experts, and instead of learning from your mistakes, you churn out hamfisted attempts at self-deprecatory sarcasm in an effort to cast yourself as the unfairly oppressed free thinker. 

Do you want to have an adult conversation or not?  Do you want to learn anything or not?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 19, 2012, 10:34:42 AM
No entry  to be validated. Log end.

Are you resigning the debate?  If so, when you return we shall pick it up exactly where you left off.  No "fringe reset" for you.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 19, 2012, 12:02:47 PM

If you can't put together arguments that don't contradict themselves, you won't get anywhere.  And even where you don't contradict yourself, you're all over the map.   You don't really even have a coherent claim; you just have a mess of ill-informed notions cribbed from various conspiracists and overlaid atop your own ill-informed certitude.

Makes me think of cottage pie.  A mince of conspiracism topped with some potato of ill-informed certitude.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: dwight on June 19, 2012, 12:25:14 PM
HB meltdowns notwithstanding, I do so very much appreciate this board for the amount of information I learn about Apollo every time I come here.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 19, 2012, 12:44:16 PM
HB meltdowns notwithstanding, I do so very much appreciate this board for the amount of information I learn about Apollo every time I come here.
We're here to serve. ;)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 19, 2012, 12:48:09 PM
No entry  to be validated. Log end.

The sound of a jet engine powering up after burn, the scream of a pilot... before the metal frame disintegrates into a million fiery pieces on the ground. Static.

"Can you hear us red leader? Red leader, can you hear us? Do you copy red leader?"
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 19, 2012, 01:48:00 PM
No entry  to be validated. Log end.

Darn.  You never did get around to educating us about how they would have faked the telemetry, either.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Abaddon on June 19, 2012, 01:58:17 PM
No entry  to be validated. Log end.

Darn.  You never did get around to educating us about how they would have faked the telemetry, either.
He thought he could come here, and wow everyone with his malarkey.

He did not expect the level of expertise here.

He ran away.

End of story.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 19, 2012, 02:30:42 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste. After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 19, 2012, 02:31:30 PM
"Can you hear us red leader? Red leader, can you hear us? Do you copy red leader?"
"Hi...this is Stacy, uh, Pink Five...I think he's, like, blown up or something..."
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tedward on June 19, 2012, 02:35:29 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste. After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.

Do you like red or blue?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: twik on June 19, 2012, 02:36:29 PM
Justin Bieber - artist or media hype?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 19, 2012, 02:36:58 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste. After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.


Why is Andrew Murray starring in a spiderman film?  Shouldn't he be working on his tennis?

Lunar Orbit, you've disabled editing right?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Zakalwe on June 19, 2012, 02:41:01 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste. After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.

Why are you afraid to learn?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 19, 2012, 02:51:42 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste. After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.

Who was the better captain, Kirk or Picard?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 19, 2012, 02:52:08 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste. After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.

I agree with Zakalwe.  Why are you afraid to learn?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 19, 2012, 02:52:40 PM
Whose question will you respond to?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 19, 2012, 02:53:19 PM
Who was the better captain, Kirk or Picard?

False dichotomy.  Sisko.

Wait, you meant that for advanced.  Dangit.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: gillianren on June 19, 2012, 03:04:36 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste. After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.

I agree with Zakalwe.  Why are you afraid to learn?

Yeah, I'm with this one.  He has admitted that he isn't interested in learning.  It's just sad.  The fact is, people who really care about something want to learn more about it even if they think they already know more than the average person.  This is someone who explicitly doesn't want to learn more about space, despite ostensibly being interested in it.  Sad, sad, sad.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 19, 2012, 03:24:21 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste. After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.


Translation: I can't play with the big boys so I'll pretend i can make them play by my rules. Fine. one question:

Is this an acceptable final question?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 19, 2012, 03:24:40 PM
This is someone who explicitly doesn't want to learn more about space, despite ostensibly being interested in it.  Sad, sad, sad.

... and possibly wants to go and teach others with his knowledge and spread his devious art. So like so many theorists. How he clung to the idea that Kaysing was not a liar and fraud, as though Kaysing was a messiah. Amusing in some ways.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 19, 2012, 03:28:26 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste. After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.

Here's the inevitable negotiation of special ground rules.  He's going to give us the privilege of choosing a question that he'll answer.

Guess what?  It's not our reputation and credibility that's at stake.  You've utterly failed to make any sort of valid point.  You've succeeded only in making an ignorant fool of yourself while throwing around a word salad composed of words you may have read in an aviation magazine.  I don't see how this puts you in a position to dictate rules for debate.  You can either engage in the debate you started or you can slink away in shame.  You don't get to set up one last hurrah so you can pretend to go out on a high note.

Sorry you didn't get to be an aerospace engineer.  But kindly find something you are good at and stop trying to tear down the legitimate accomplishments of others.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 19, 2012, 03:30:25 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste.

Since the moon is made of cheese, it should have bubbled like Welsh rarebit under the heat of the LM engine but did not. Do you think this is greatest proof of the hoax?  :-*
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 19, 2012, 03:37:12 PM
But the most important question must be: how much diazepam has been slipped into the flasks of the England team?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: stutefish on June 19, 2012, 03:37:57 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste. After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.
Bunch or fold?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: stutefish on June 19, 2012, 03:46:34 PM
So I don't know if there's a pool on this, but my bet is actually on fattydash et al.

While the specific tropes invoked seem to be a selection of "greatest hits" from various HBs, aping another HB's style is pretty trivial to do, for anyone who's been lurking at the usual watering holes lately.

And fd seemed to have a particular enthusiasm for stylistic shenanigans.

And conceptual shenanigans as well; this thread opens with a bizarre and incoherent attempt at some sort of conceptual framework based on "strong" and "weak" arguments, which promptly went nowhere.

Then there's the frequent acknowledging of rebuttals, without ever addressing rebuttals.

And the constant, obviously contradictory and hypocritical positions (don't speak ill of others/speak ill of others).

And the classic fd trope, the thing is a hoax but the people involved were admirable heroes not hoaxers.

Etc.

I'll consider myself vindicated if ab's next appearance features appeals to his friends, family, chess club, chinese radar technician co-workers, or fellow bicycle enthusiasts.

I'll consider myself told if instead ab resorts to argument by links to SpursTalk.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tedward on June 19, 2012, 03:53:38 PM
Rather presumptuous either way,  I shall answer only one question.... bit like an ultimatum at the ancient stone of Kringe in the castle off doom after the intrepid explorers have gone there through many perils to seek the answer to the overriding question in life, and the great sage limits them. Under the circumstance at the ancient stone of Kringe then I would expect n old sage to say such.

However, on a forum it sounds very, well, high and mighty.  As is this validates your point in anyway, first you have to show some........


Oh what the heck, would you get a perpetual motion machine if you taped some buttered toast to the back of a cat?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: sts60 on June 19, 2012, 04:13:33 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste.
OK.  You never answered any of my questions, but here goes:

What makes you think you are the first self-important child who thought he could bluff his way around this forum, only to become frustrated (because the other members actually knew what they were talking about), throw a temper tantrum, and stomp out?

After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.

In terms of presenting a coherent or original argument, let alone attempting to learn anything, you were never here in the first place. 
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: twik on June 19, 2012, 04:15:23 PM
Whose question will you respond to?

I presume that we're all to gather in our Government Shills Office conference room, and choose one by secret ballot.

Tedward - I agree. I have visions of being blasted off the bridge by Tim the Enchanter if we pick the wrong one.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 19, 2012, 04:33:44 PM
This is someone who explicitly doesn't want to learn more about space, despite ostensibly being interested in it.  Sad, sad, sad.

... and possibly wants to go and teach others with his knowledge and spread his devious art. So like so many theorists. How he clung to the idea that Kaysing was not a liar and fraud, as though Kaysing was a messiah. Amusing in some ways.

That's the practical downside of the teaching approach.  The dedicated and unreachable hoax believers just use it as a factino-gathering mission so they can go to some other forum and impress everyone else on how well they researched the Apollo Project before determining it was all a hoax.

Of course that pose falls apart under any serious inquiry, but there are so many forums where they manage to get away with it.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 19, 2012, 04:50:08 PM
Of course that pose falls apart under any serious inquiry, but there are so many forums where they manage to get away with it.

... and at those forums he will tell stories of how he showed us all. After the IMBd debacle, one young hoax proponent slunk away, declared his victory and how he stuck it to Jay with a big dose of poisoning the well; producing some lame argument that Jay gave alternative accounts of how Aldrin 'agreed' to his interview with Sibrel. It was all about hiding his credibility, or lack of it, by drawing into question that of another.

Of course, our HBer conveniently ignored and skipped over the real substance of his exchange on radiation. Probably because he did not understand it and realised he should not show further ignorance. For some reason, it really irks me when such people behave in such a manner. How they think they can keep getting away with their actions is beyond me.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 19, 2012, 05:02:47 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste. After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.

Is that a threat or a promise? 
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ginnie on June 19, 2012, 05:35:06 PM
What arrogance to assume that every poster on the internet is American, and hence is an American government shill. Now perhaps a Canadian government shill, like Lunar Orbit, is up to no good whist eating his Tally Ho double beef basket, but then those Canadians.......

BTW Gillian, I for one read your posts, even if others don't :)

Pete

I read her posts too - scrutinizing them for spelling or grammatical errors along the way. Haven't found one yet!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: advancedboy on June 19, 2012, 05:46:44 PM
  The last question was  a goodbye . You could have asked anything, because after this there will be no more chances. And it is , most likely, so much better for you.  It is not an arrogancy, it is my last step next to you.
 I am not made of the stuff you are.  Be it for better or worse. I read your older forum  just a bit earlier. You do not represent the truth. You represent the sad science of status quo, cherry picking facts to suit your  pre-imagined answers. How lonely for me it was to read about your presidential choices, The pentagon attack, 9/11,  and the rest of the stuff where you mock people as `those conspiracists`. How little science one must understand, or its basic principles apply to go  and so blatantly support every claim that fits the government data. How sad  that you have no  unbiased capacity to research The Pentagon case, the  insurance  claims, stock put options, names of all companies in twin towers, etc. It is so sad to hear that, as if you are from a different planet. You can distort the reality  to me, but you can`t lie to yourself. You will have to live with it. You think  you will use all your references from NASA, and simply debunk by agressively pushing your ideas as absolute truth, or trying to create a complex answer to mud the waters. You don`t represent the truth, you represent everything that is truth to the government.
 My suspicion was  how agreeable you are to each other, except anyone that would go against  the`official story`.What is life worth if one can`t be free. I have no capacity to lie to myself, I rather lose, than win dishonestly.
 No wonder you are so alone here, cramped under pro-official story  everything. Sad . So sad. This is the line that I must draw a big stop. I  would go against everything that is of value in this life for me, if I had to agree with your ideas on all these forum threads.  This the last entry and this is goodbye forever. OUT.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Hal on June 19, 2012, 05:50:02 PM
Who passed gas?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 19, 2012, 05:59:45 PM
  The last question was  a goodbye . You could have asked anything, because after this there will be no more chances.

And this only really matters to you.

Quote
And it is , most likely, so much better for you.  It is not an arrogancy, it is my last step next to you.
 I am not made of the stuff you are.  Be it for better or worse. I read your older forum  just a bit earlier. You do not represent the truth. You represent the sad science of status quo, cherry picking facts to suit your  pre-imagined answers.

Projection, thy name is advancedboy.

Quote
How lonely for me it was to read about your presidential choices, The pentagon attack, 9/11,  and the rest of the stuff where you mock people as `those conspiracists`.

How can you tell our "presidential choices" by a few posts on an internet forum, especially in such a wide sweep?  I'm not a big fan of any of the current presidential choices; at least not fully.

Quote
How little science one must understand, or its basic principles apply to go  and so blatantly support every claim that fits the government data.

A different kind of projection.  I go by the scientific principles, not the government data.

Quote
How sad  that you have no  unbiased capacity to research The Pentagon case, the  insurance  claims, stock put options, names of all companies in twin towers, etc. It is so sad to hear that, as if you are from a different planet. You can distort the reality  to me, but you can`t lie to yourself. You will have to live with it. You think  you will use all your references from NASA, and simply debunk by agressively pushing your ideas as absolute truth, or trying to create a complex answer to mud the waters. You don`t represent the truth, you represent everything that is truth to the government.

Yet you couldn't demonstrate any one of your claims.

Quote
My suspicion was  how agreeable you are to each other, except anyone that would go against  the`official story`.What is life worth if one can`t be free. I have no capacity to lie to myself, I rather lose, than win dishonestly.

This is like saying, if 100 person say that apples fall to the earth, there's something "sad" and "wrong" about them rolling their eyes when 1 person absolutely inside that apples float into the air.

And really, even assuming you aren't dishonest, at the very least you're intellectually dishonest.  You won't work to understand the science.

Quote
No wonder you are so alone here, cramped under pro-official story  everything. Sad . So sad. This is the line that I must draw a big stop. I  would go against everything that is of value in this life for me, if I had to agree with your ideas on all these forum threads.

I'm sorry to hear that.  Maybe someday you will mature and realize how science works.

Quote
This the last entry and this is goodbye forever. OUT.

Bye.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Chew on June 19, 2012, 06:00:04 PM
How little science one must understand, or its basic principles...

This from the guy who couldn't solve the simplest algebraic equation ever presented on a forum.

Quote
I have no capacity to lie to myself, I rather lose, than win dishonestly.

On the contrary, lying to yourself is the only capacity you have demonstrated you possess during your short visit here.

Quote
No wonder you are so alone here, cramped under pro-official story  everything. Sad . So sad.

We're hardly alone as a tiny bit of unbiased research would have shown you, but unbiased research is against your psychology so it is no surprise you couldn't find posters exactly like yourself here or on the old board.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 19, 2012, 06:00:18 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste. After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.
Are you really the head of the Quik-E-Mart?
Really?
You?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Zakalwe on June 19, 2012, 06:01:40 PM
Awww shoot.....I wanna change my question now.

What is airspeed-velocity of an unladen swallow?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 19, 2012, 06:02:42 PM
  The last question was  a goodbye . You could have asked anything, because after this there will be no more chances.

Oh no, no more chances to discuss things with an ignorant, childish, melodramatic intellectual coward? how will we survive?!

Quote
How lonely for me it was to read about your presidential choices,

How tedious it is to see yet another HB assume everyone here is from the US.

Quote
You don`t represent the truth, you represent everything that is truth to the government.

Which government?

Quote
I have no capacity to lie to myself, I rather lose, than win dishonestly.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!

Sorry, now I have picked myself up off the floor, I will respond properly. What an arrogant little liar you really are. We have all seen your desperate twisting and turning to do anything BUT admit you have lost, especially over on the chemtrails thread. You asked for calculations. You got them. You complained they did not prove a statement they were never supposed to prove, and failed to acknowledge that they did prove your incredulity at an earlier statement to be unbased in reality.

Quote
I  would go against everything that is of value in this life for me, if I had to agree with your ideas on all these forum threads.

Of course, because all that is of value to you in this life is protecting your little delusion where you are the world's greatest authority in everything and a brave moral crusader for truth. Shame you never completed the level of education and experience, nor developed the moral fibre needed to actually fulfil that role.

Quote
This the last entry and this is goodbye forever. OUT.

Please do let the door hit you on the way out.

You know the sad thing? We would have happily discussed anything and everything with you, if only you have been willing to actually engage in a discussion instead of hurling crap at the wall and hoping some would stick.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 19, 2012, 06:03:03 PM
What is airspeed-velocity of an unladen swallow?

Is that an African or a European swallow?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Zakalwe on June 19, 2012, 06:15:58 PM
What is airspeed-velocity of an unladen swallow?

Is that an African or a European swallow?


Erm??? I don't know...
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa....   :)


Advancedboy probably imagines himself striding off into the sunset, having slayed the mythical monsters of Apollohoax.net. His long hair shines in the moonlight (which, if you are DAKDAK it, of course emits), sweat glistens on his rippling muscles. He is bloodied, yet unbowed, and will live to fight another day.

Meanwhile, back in reality, anyone with half a working brain, is rolling around on the floor, wetting themselves laughing at his flounce.

(http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/oo141/bramble43/flounce_oneniner.jpg)

 :)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Count Zero on June 19, 2012, 06:21:41 PM
You can ask one last question. Decide carefully, don`t make it go to waste. After that you will hear of me no more, as if I never existed. Never ever again.
Are you really the head of the Quik-E-Mart?
Really?
You?


Thank you.  I couldn't remember the quote, or even enough of it to do a search.

Tapdance boy declared that he would answer one more question, then - true to form - failed to answer any question in his "last" post.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 19, 2012, 06:22:40 PM
So yet another sock puppet?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: sts60 on June 19, 2012, 06:22:56 PM
  The last question was  a goodbye . You could have asked anything, because after this there will be no more chances.
Irrelevant, as you never answered any of my questions.

Quote
I am not made of the stuff you are.

For which I am suitably grateful.

Quote
No wonder you are so alone here,

Trying to educate the willfully ignorant (current population: you) is a lonely job, but somebody's gotta try.

Quote
cramped under pro-official story  everything. Sad . So sad. This is the line that I must draw a big stop. I  would go against everything that is of value in this life for me, if I had to agree with your ideas on all these forum threads.

(shrug)  Pretty picture you posted.  I'll have to content myself with working on real spacecraft.

Quote
This the last entry and this is goodbye forever. OUT.

Meh.  You didn't hold your skirt properly when you flounced out.  Your face-saving exit routine was predictable and uninspired.  I give it a 3.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ginnie on June 19, 2012, 06:24:56 PM
No entry  to be validated. Log end.

Darn.  You never did get around to educating us about how they would have faked the telemetry, either.

I've always thought that that would be the hardest part to fake. Indeed, I don't even know how it could be done.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 19, 2012, 06:26:25 PM
The last question was  a goodbye . You could have asked anything, because after this there will be no more chances.

And he still didn't answer a question.

Quote
My suspicion was  how agreeable you are to each other
 

Except when we have been strongly opposed to others positions. 

Quote
I  would go against everything that is of value in this life for me, if I had to agree with your ideas on all these forum threads. This the last entry and this is goodbye forever. OUT.

BS.  No one has asked you to agree with anything. We have asked you to state, justify and defend your beliefs.   Something you have failed to do.  So stop your whining and slink away into your own little world where people don''t challenge you to think and discuss ideas.  If you ever change your mind and want to actually have a discussion, the forum is still open to you.



  The last question was  a goodbye . You could have asked anything, because after this there will be no more chances. And it is , most likely, so much better for you.  It is not an arrogancy, it is my last step next to you.
 I am not made of the stuff you are.  Be it for better or worse. I read your older forum  just a bit earlier. You do not represent the truth. You represent the sad science of status quo, cherry picking facts to suit your  pre-imagined answers. How lonely for me it was to read about your presidential choices, The pentagon attack, 9/11,  and the rest of the stuff where you mock people as `those conspiracists`. How little science one must understand, or its basic principles apply to go  and so blatantly support every claim that fits the government data. How sad  that you have no  unbiased capacity to research The Pentagon case, the  insurance  claims, stock put options, names of all companies in twin towers, etc. It is so sad to hear that, as if you are from a different planet. You can distort the reality  to me, but you can`t lie to yourself. You will have to live with it. You think  you will use all your references from NASA, and simply debunk by agressively pushing your ideas as absolute truth, or trying to create a complex answer to mud the waters. You don`t represent the truth, you represent everything that is truth to the government.
 My suspicion was  how agreeable you are to each other, except anyone that would go against  the`official story`.What is life worth if one can`t be free. I have no capacity to lie to myself, I rather lose, than win dishonestly.
 No wonder you are so alone here, cramped under pro-official story  everything. Sad . So sad. This is the line that I must draw a big stop. I  would go against everything that is of value in this life for me, if I had to agree with your ideas on all these forum threads.  This the last entry and this is goodbye forever. OUT.

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Zakalwe on June 19, 2012, 06:28:55 PM
If Cartman was here he'd probably ask if Advancedboy had sand in his hoo-ha
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: raven on June 19, 2012, 06:39:42 PM
So yet another sock puppet?
I am of the opinion this was an original, but only in the sense of not being a previously banned poster.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 19, 2012, 06:43:34 PM
Of course that pose falls apart under any serious inquiry, but there are so many forums where they manage to get away with it.

... and at those forums he will tell stories of how he showed us all. After the IMBd debacle, one young hoax proponent slunk away, declared his victory and how he stuck it to Jay with a big dose of poisoning the well; producing some lame argument that Jay gave alternative accounts of how Aldrin 'agreed' to his interview with Sibrel. It was all about hiding his credibility, or lack of it, by drawing into question that of another.

Of course, our HBer conveniently ignored and skipped over the real substance of his exchange on radiation. Probably because he did not understand it and realised he should not show further ignorance. For some reason, it really irks me when such people behave in such a manner. How they think they can keep getting away with their actions is beyond me.

What bugs me more (and confuses me more) is the intellectual dishonesty.  How can someone go onto a forum arguing that rockets "can't land on their tails," be shown examples of multiple rockets that can, learn more about the history of the LLTV, etc., then leave and go to some other forum and argue convincingly with every bit of this wealth of technical detail EXCEPT those examples of the thing actually being done?

I mean, how can they deal with the cognitive dissonance?  Do they realize they are lying, on that new forum?  Do they care, or are they able to somehow do some trick of rationalization in which their presentation of facts they KNOW aren't true, plus facts that are, combines into something that is true and right?  Do they compartmentalize?  Or are they posting in full knowledge, and laughing at the expense of the people they are convincing?

I just don't get it.  And maybe this is because I have to solve problems and argue technical issues at work, and unlike online forums where the discussion can go on forever, the Universe is running the house and the house always wins in the end.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 19, 2012, 06:46:19 PM
What arrogance to assume that every poster on the internet is American, and hence is an American government shill. Now perhaps a Canadian government shill, like Lunar Orbit, is up to no good whist eating his Tally Ho double beef basket, but then those Canadians.......

BTW Gillian, I for one read your posts, even if others don't :)

Pete

I read her posts too - scrutinizing them for spelling or grammatical errors along the way. Haven't found one yet!

That's gonna be a harder t-shirt than the "I corrected Jay" one.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: nomuse on June 19, 2012, 06:51:33 PM
No entry  to be validated. Log end.

Darn.  You never did get around to educating us about how they would have faked the telemetry, either.

I've always thought that that would be the hardest part to fake. Indeed, I don't even know how it could be done.

AI.

I mean, what; you've already got robots down there digging core samples, setting up experiments and reflectors, etc.  (And for all that I know, trundling around with little rubber stamps making boot prints).  And it is hardly Turing material to respond to communications problems and make a comment or two on ball scores.

Why, I bet we could have developed such robotics by 2008 -- maybe earlier!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 19, 2012, 06:53:39 PM
You could have asked anything, because after this there will be no more chances.
There never was a chance.  You've been dodging and evading since Day One.  Why should today be any different?  You don't know what you're talking about, and this has been made painfully apparent even to you.

Quote
It is not an arrogancy
It is, consummately so.  You have no demonstrable qualifications, experience, or understanding of the topics you propose to criticize.  You demand to speak only to qualified people, then you disregard what they say.  Your parting shot is simply an accusation that everyone who disputes you is ignorant and brainwashed.  Sorry to tell you, you are not mankind's superhero.  You were given the chance to prove your statements, and all you've proven is how gullible you are.  You rattle off a list of long-debunked conspiracy theorists and can bring nothing else to the table.  You have let them do your thinking for you, and you're proud of it.

Quote
I am not made of the stuff you are.
No you aren't.  Not in the least.  Unlike you, the regulars here have made something of themselves.

Quote
You do not represent the truth. You represent the sad science of status quo, cherry picking facts to suit your pre-imagined answers.
Projection noted.  This is the field I work in.  You merely admire (or more often, criticize) it from afar, from a position of demonstrable ignorance.  The "status quo" of science is there because it has proven to work in the real world where results count.

Quote
How little science one must understand, or its basic principles apply to go and so blatantly support every claim that fits the government data.
You were asked repeatedly to supply your superior credentials and qualifications.  You refused, which is tantamount to an admission you have none.  You have steeped yourself in conspiracy nonsense under the mistaken belief it will make you sound wise, and you cling to it with religious fervor.

Quote
It is so sad to hear that, as if you are from a different planet.
I'm from Earth.  Where are you from?

Quote
You will have to live with it.
Okay, I'm fine with that.

Quote
You think you will use all your references from NASA...
No, I'm using my 25 years of professional experience in this field.  You offered nothing in return except regurgigoogled conspiracy nonsense that you admit you hadn't even verified yourself.

Quote
You don`t represent the truth, you represent everything that is truth to the government.
Whose government?  You mistakenly believe everyone here is an American or has sympathies with the U.S. government.  That's because you came here with beliefs generated solely by political and economic concerns, and you tried to make believe there was a technical and factual record to support it.  When you found out there wasn't, you tried to shoehorn everyone here into the caricature you had already drawn for anyone who objected to you.  Life is different than you imagine it.  Deal with it.

Quote
My suspicion was how agreeable you are to each other, except anyone that would go against  the`official story`.
Asked and answered.  You never stopped to consider why people agree with a certain conclusion.  You've set it up in your mind that anyone who believes Apollo was real must necessarily be ignorant.  In fact you can't deal with the notion that many people believe Apollo was real because that's where the facts conclusively point.  Until you understand that there can be informed disagreement with your beliefs, you won't get very far.

Quote
I rather lose, than win dishonestly.
No, you both lost and were dishonest.

Quote
No wonder you are so alone here, cramped under pro-official story everything.
What makes you think we're alone?   The people who believe Apollo was real constitute the overwhelming majority of surveyed people, and the entirety of the applicably qualified professionals in the world.  You can't accuse us of harboring the mainstream view and then simultaneously tell us how "alone" we are.  We are the majority.  You're a small, ignorant minority.  Deal with it.

Quote
I would go against everything that is of value in this life for me, if I had to agree with your ideas on all these forum threads.
Well good luck in the Church of Kaysing then.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 19, 2012, 06:57:36 PM
...the Universe is running the house and the house always wins in the end.

Nicely articulated, and consistent with ka9q's reference to Galileo. Conspiracism cannot replace science. I have always maintained that the argument is not Apollo. The argument is that these people, who have no credentials or experience in the fields that they claim expertise, ridicule what is considered to be man's greatest technical achievement. It is they that choose to make it political by using terms like 'government data'. Yet that same government data allows them to communicate over the internet using the outputs of an industry that they lay waste to with such blinding arrogance.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: scooter on June 19, 2012, 06:59:24 PM
Does he really believe that everything folks here (or anywhere, I guess) know about spaceflight comes from NASA? I don't think they have a monopoly on such knowledge...an interesting, and very skewed, viewpoint on the world.
Meanwhile, why do I have problems believing he's from Latvia? He seemed to have a specific interest in the problems in the US.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 19, 2012, 07:27:07 PM
  The last question was  a goodbye . You could have asked anything, because after this there will be no more chances. And it is , most likely, so much better for you.  It is not an arrogancy, it is my last step next to you.
 I am not made of the stuff you are.  Be it for better or worse. I read your older forum  just a bit earlier. You do not represent the truth. You represent the sad science of status quo, cherry picking facts to suit your  pre-imagined answers. How lonely for me it was to read about your presidential choices, The pentagon attack, 9/11,  and the rest of the stuff where you mock people as `those conspiracists`. How little science one must understand, or its basic principles apply to go  and so blatantly support every claim that fits the government data. How sad  that you have no  unbiased capacity to research The Pentagon case, the  insurance  claims, stock put options, names of all companies in twin towers, etc. It is so sad to hear that, as if you are from a different planet. You can distort the reality  to me, but you can`t lie to yourself. You will have to live with it. You think  you will use all your references from NASA, and simply debunk by agressively pushing your ideas as absolute truth, or trying to create a complex answer to mud the waters. You don`t represent the truth, you represent everything that is truth to the government.
 My suspicion was  how agreeable you are to each other, except anyone that would go against  the`official story`.What is life worth if one can`t be free. I have no capacity to lie to myself, I rather lose, than win dishonestly.
 No wonder you are so alone here, cramped under pro-official story  everything. Sad . So sad. This is the line that I must draw a big stop. I  would go against everything that is of value in this life for me, if I had to agree with your ideas on all these forum threads.  This the last entry and this is goodbye forever. OUT.
We already knew you never answered questions.  Why should we think you'll change just because it is supposedly our "last chance"?  You're a troll.  You've been nothing but a troll since day one.  Goodbye and good riddance.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 19, 2012, 07:28:29 PM
Darn.  You never did get around to educating us about how they would have faked the telemetry, either.

Watch Jarrah White's Exhibit D videos, where he just makes up rubbish. It's easy... apparently you just need relay satellites. Jobs a gud 'un if you live in La-la land.

 ;)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Count Zero on June 19, 2012, 07:32:13 PM
why do I have problems believing he's from Latvia? He seemed to have a specific interest in the problems in the US.

Maybe he meant Latveria (http://www.samruby.com/Villains/DoctorDoom/doom.htm)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: gillianren on June 19, 2012, 08:52:40 PM
What arrogance to assume that every poster on the internet is American, and hence is an American government shill. Now perhaps a Canadian government shill, like Lunar Orbit, is up to no good whist eating his Tally Ho double beef basket, but then those Canadians.......

BTW Gillian, I for one read your posts, even if others don't :)

Pete

I read her posts too - scrutinizing them for spelling or grammatical errors along the way. Haven't found one yet!

That's gonna be a harder t-shirt than the "I corrected Jay" one.

And I don't even get the shirt for correcting Jay's grammar!

In all seriousness, I do make mistakes.  Often, I merely catch them doing a read-through after hitting "post," which is why I'm glad editing isn't entirely taken away.  I've also had a few other people catch them.  We are none of us perfect.  Though I do get a little peeved when people crow about having caught an error in my posts when it is merely that they aren't familiar with the idiom I'm using!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: DataCable on June 19, 2012, 08:54:47 PM
Just FYI, the Biogon lenses on the EVA cameras would only open to f/5.6.
Noted.  I'll freely admit to a University of Google education on this point, I just used the largest aperture I saw on pg. 2 of this document (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/A14PhotoIndexPt1.pdf).

Quote
Especially since the image of Venus was only recently discovered in them.
If you can call 2007 "recently."

Quote
By one of my good friends.   ::)
Awwww, shucks.


No entry  to be validated. Log end.
Insert "Cut and Run" reference here.


There is a basic axiom of engineering.
You can do things quickly, you can do things with quality, or you can do things cheaply.
At best you can get two of the three
Or, as I've heard it put much more succinctly: Cheap. Fast. Right.  Pick two.


What is airspeed-velocity of an unladen swallow?
Dang it, he beat me to it.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: twik on June 19, 2012, 09:02:58 PM
Is this the point where we sob "NOOOOO! Don't go!"?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 19, 2012, 10:01:20 PM
Raise your hands, everyone that was completely shocked at the last post and said, "Why, I never thought about it like that, I guess everything I knew was wrong?"
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: peter eldergill on June 19, 2012, 10:53:35 PM
The pentagon attack, 9/11,  and the rest of the stuff where you mock people as `those conspiracists`. How little science one must understand, or its basic principles apply to go  and so blatantly support every claim that fits the government data. How sad  that you have no  unbiased capacity to research The Pentagon case, the  insurance  claims, stock put options, names of all companies in twin towers, etc.

Hmmm....Latvia, eh? You seem to care an awful lot aboot American politics

Considering 9/11 ***wasn't even discussed***, I guess you don't care aboot Apollo at all, your real agenda was going to be 9/11 all along.

Pete
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 19, 2012, 11:03:34 PM
Looks like we're popular on another site he's on.

http://www.alienscientist.com/forum/search.php?searchid=84765

Quote from: NPK
Like if publicly outside of this forum a renowned PhD or someone of that technical calibre would say: "We're seeing the backup version here folks, recourse to authority fallacy in hand, so ehmm, just stand back and crawl into your holes regarding the Did Apollo Really Happen? issue. Regarding the strong case against false Apollo Moon rocks that Jarrah White did assemble using published research and logical arguments based on scientific reasoning able to stand in a court of law until proven otherwise that indeed they are earth-made imitations? Bah! It's the same as the HoloHoax, don't even think about raising doubts and questions, even though it's as obvious! We, the good thinking people, all agree on putting the ApolloHoax in the same Hate Crime category of offences as the HoloCASHFLOW, to shut you up, and if you don't, we'll be able to throw you also in jail and discredit you, your circle of professional contacts, your circle of friends and your whole family while we're at it, for the HERESY you made questioning obvious falsehoods at the root/top of society in public. We already giggle."

Mostly it's NPK mentioning us, though.  Don't see anything by advancedboy yet.

I did have to laugh at the Hate Crime category, though.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tanalia on June 19, 2012, 11:15:48 PM
I see I didn't miss anything by putting the ranting child on ignore...
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Count Zero on June 19, 2012, 11:40:54 PM
I think this NPK character ran for office in the North Minehead by-election a while back.

[/Gowdin]  ;)
Title: Re: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 20, 2012, 03:06:10 AM
  The last question was  a goodbye .

Then it wasn't a question, was it? You lied to us!

 
Quote
You could have asked anything, because after this there will be no more chances.

We did ask anything. You haven't unanswered anything.

Quote
I am not made of the stuff you are. 

Carbon?

Quote
You do not represent the truth. You represent the sad science of status quo, cherry picking facts to suit your  pre-imagined answers.

Typical crank mindset. The status quo and "the truth" are automatically opposites in the world of the tinfoil hat. You were the one who chose to take on faith the word of a man who admitted to lying over the word and evidence of thousands of others. You can cherry pick for England.

 
Quote
How little science one must understand, or its basic principles apply to go  and so blatantly support every claim that fits the government data.

Yes how dare we fit our conclusions to the data! Facts are for sheeple. The seek the truth we must make up whatever crap takes our fancy.

Quote
You will have to live with it.

Yes, Captain. We have reality and you have fantasy. May you find your way as pleasant.

Quote
You think  you will use all your references from NASA, and simply debunk by agressively pushing your ideas as absolute truth, or trying to create a complex answer to mud the waters.

Our ideas come the evidence and scientific principles. You just make stuff up and wallow in your ignorance.


Quote
You don`t represent the truth, you represent everything that is truth to the government.

False dichotomy. Government is no more a harbinger of fantasy than anyone or anything else. You are the biased one a priori dismissing anything the government might say as deception.

Quote
What is life worth if one can`t be free.

We are freer than you are. We are liberated by our ability to understand the world, to look at facts and to think critically.

You are enslaved by your ignorance, your prejudices and as such are a goose waiting to be herded by hucksters like the Kaysing.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Inanimate Carbon Rod on June 20, 2012, 10:41:06 AM
So has AdvanceBoy left because his planet needed him?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Trebor on June 20, 2012, 12:12:51 PM
So has AdvanceBoy left because his planet needed him?

He'll be back... Probably in disguise.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Abaddon on June 20, 2012, 12:20:33 PM
He'll be back... Probably in disguise.
You may well be right.

In my view, he bailed in the face of hard evidence, and were the facility still available, would likely have gone the DAKDAK route, and tried to delete his embarrassing posts
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 20, 2012, 01:05:54 PM
I don't think so.  I think it honestly seems like he thought he was in the right, and was grandstanding the truth to us insignificant peons/disinfo agents.  I think that he really does think that he's in the right, and we're distorting reality to counter his claims.

His last few posts were not in the tone of someone that wanted to erase that they were here, but wanted people to see so they could see how stupid all of us are.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 20, 2012, 01:09:17 PM
My guess is that in the event of a return, he whistles a happy tune and pretends that none of the previous threads exist.   Then fails at another less than subtle attempt to discus the "evidence" of a hoax while ignoring the circularity of his own thinking.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Rob260259 on June 20, 2012, 01:22:56 PM
What arrogance to assume that every poster on the internet is American, and hence is an American government shill. Now perhaps a Canadian government shill, like Lunar Orbit, is up to no good whist eating his Tally Ho double beef basket, but then those Canadians.......

BTW Gillian, I for one read your posts, even if others don't :)

Pete

Dat heb je mooi gezegd. Overigens, ik ben Nederlands.
(I'm Dutch)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 20, 2012, 01:25:54 PM
Dat heb je mooi gezegd. Overigens, ik ben Nederlands.
(I'm Dutch)

Ich bin in Deutschland geboren, aber ich habe amerikanische Staatsangehörigkeit.

I was born in Germany, but I have American citizenship.  ;)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tedward on June 20, 2012, 01:26:44 PM
  The last question was  a goodbye . You could have asked anything, because after this there will be no more chances. And it is , most likely, so much better for you.  It is not an arrogancy, it is my last step next to you.
 I am not made of the stuff you are.  Be it for better or worse. I read your older forum  just a bit earlier. You do not represent the truth. You represent the sad science of status quo, cherry picking facts to suit your  pre-imagined answers. How lonely for me it was to read about your presidential choices, The pentagon attack, 9/11,  and the rest of the stuff where you mock people as `those conspiracists`. How little science one must understand, or its basic principles apply to go  and so blatantly support every claim that fits the government data. How sad  that you have no  unbiased capacity to research The Pentagon case, the  insurance  claims, stock put options, names of all companies in twin towers, etc. It is so sad to hear that, as if you are from a different planet. You can distort the reality  to me, but you can`t lie to yourself. You will have to live with it. You think  you will use all your references from NASA, and simply debunk by agressively pushing your ideas as absolute truth, or trying to create a complex answer to mud the waters. You don`t represent the truth, you represent everything that is truth to the government.
 My suspicion was  how agreeable you are to each other, except anyone that would go against  the`official story`.What is life worth if one can`t be free. I have no capacity to lie to myself, I rather lose, than win dishonestly.
 No wonder you are so alone here, cramped under pro-official story  everything. Sad . So sad. This is the line that I must draw a big stop. I  would go against everything that is of value in this life for me, if I had to agree with your ideas on all these forum threads.  This the last entry and this is goodbye forever. OUT.

You could have asked anything, because after this there will be no more chances. And it is , most likely, so much better for you.  It is not an arrogancy, it is my last step next to you.

By Odins soggy under wear. This for real?

I am not made of the stuff you are.

Yes you are.

Be it for better or worse. I read your older forum  just a bit earlier. You do not represent the truth. You represent the sad science of status quo, cherry picking facts to suit your  pre-imagined answers.

Then you have not read it. I have learned a great deal from people asking. The demonstrated knowledge bounces off down the corridor of learning opening doors I would not thought of and diverse threads from one topic has the more learned on here making some very interesting reading for those of us that have not had the privileged. And for that I thank them in the very least. That is why I do not think you have read the old forum. The words may have gone in, but they missed the grey cells completely.

Rest of your rant, well, I can live with myself. When are you publishing your proof?

Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 20, 2012, 01:44:01 PM
I don't think so.  I think it honestly seems like he thought he was in the right, and was grandstanding the truth to us insignificant peons/disinfo agents.  I think that he really does think that he's in the right, and we're distorting reality to counter his claims.

His last few posts were not in the tone of someone that wanted to erase that they were here, but wanted people to see so they could see how stupid all of us are.

He did make reference to his departure being like he was never here, which sounded suspiciously like he was implying he might try a DAKDAK flounce.  Of course, his other words are pretty unambiguous.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: pzkpfw on June 20, 2012, 03:26:38 PM
Hmmm....Latvia, eh? You seem to care an awful lot aboot American politics ...

He's really Canadian?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ineluki on June 21, 2012, 08:51:08 AM
Dat heb je mooi gezegd. Overigens, ik ben Nederlands.
(I'm Dutch)

... must not tell soccer joke ... must not tell soccer joke ... must not tell soccer joke ... must not tell soccer joke ...
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: raven on June 21, 2012, 03:17:01 PM
Hmmm....Latvia, eh? You seem to care an awful lot aboot American politics ...

He's really Canadian?
No idea if he was, but I am. :)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Rob260259 on June 21, 2012, 04:59:02 PM
Dat heb je mooi gezegd. Overigens, ik ben Nederlands.
(I'm Dutch)

... must not tell soccer joke ... must not tell soccer joke ... must not tell soccer joke ... must not tell soccer joke ...


:-)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Noldi400 on June 22, 2012, 04:45:03 PM
I know I'm an evil person, but I really do like it when they break into goon babble and flounce off in a huff.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 22, 2012, 10:51:29 PM
Just to be clear. Advancedboy hasn't been banned but rather flounced.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 23, 2012, 03:54:33 AM
http://greylining.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/flounce-bingo.jpg?w=510
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Tedward on June 23, 2012, 05:07:27 AM
Probably on the forum for Seers, Naughty wizards and evil mages and general tomfoolery finding out how to make a mysterious grand exit.

Should have used this "Oh puny mortals, I shall grant thee one last answer to the tortuous questions that trouble thy sorry souls"
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 23, 2012, 07:45:25 AM
But things are so boring without people like advancedboy around...
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 23, 2012, 07:56:59 AM
But things are so boring without people like advancedboy around...

True. Even his handle is hilariously funny. I do wonder how long it took for him to think of 'advancedboy' as his name, and then think he could present such a rambling gish gallop. Even by the standards of some HBs, the rantings were hilarious to watch as they unfolded.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Noldi400 on June 23, 2012, 09:12:53 AM
I think at this point all the HB "arguments" about radiation, shadows, etc. have become irrelevant. It seems to me to come down to the LRO images. If they're genuine, we went to the moon; if not, we faked it.

To refer back to the subject line, there never have been any 'strong' arguments, of course; just misinformation, picking at trivial anomalies, and unfounded speculation.

The Nameless One, I'm convinced, will never admit the truth - to do so would be to admit that the last several years of his life have pretty much been spent pointlessly. Which they have, of course, but what a blow it would be to his ego to admit it.

Many HBs have compared themselves to Galileo, crying out against the conventional belief. I submit that they have the roles reversed. The HB crowd clings to dogma with no real foundation; the rest of us base our beliefs on science and observed fact.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 23, 2012, 09:36:57 AM
The Nameless One, I'm convinced, will never admit the truth - to do so would be to admit that the last several years of his life have pretty much been spent pointlessly. Which they have, of course, but what a blow it would be to his ego to admit it.

I think he knows it is true. He's either dug himself in too deep and cannot admit it, or he's just using it as a money making scam. That's only my speculation of course.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Noldi400 on June 23, 2012, 10:24:25 AM
Quote
I think he knows it is true. He's either dug himself in too deep and cannot admit it, or he's just using it as a money making scam. That's only my speculation of course.

He's making money from somewhere, judging by his travel habits. I see he's supposed to be "presenting" at a so-called Conference in Italy next month.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Bob B. on June 23, 2012, 12:00:29 PM
To refer back to the subject line, there never have been any 'strong' arguments, of course; just misinformation, picking at trivial anomalies, and unfounded speculation.

From what I've observed from HB behavior, a "weak" argument is one that was once considered strong but has been so thoroughly debunked that even most HBs now realized it is wrong.  A "strong" argument is one that has also been thoroughly debunked but the HBs haven't yet been able to bring themselves to abandon it.  The main difference is that the debunking arguments against the "weak" arguments are simple enough that the HB mind can mostly understand it, while the debunking arguments against the "strong" arguments are beyond what most HB minds can understand.  It is simply a perception thing and has nothing to do with the actual strength or weakness of the argument.  As we know, all HB arguments are truly weak.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Count Zero on June 23, 2012, 06:37:23 PM
http://greylining.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/flounce-bingo.jpg?w=510

<Bookmark!>
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Noldi400 on June 24, 2012, 02:01:44 AM
Bob B:

Quote
From what I've observed from HB behavior, a "weak" argument is one that was once considered strong but has been so thoroughly debunked that even most... <snipped for space>

So a "weak" argument might be the lack of stars, since the average second-grader should be able to understand that, while radiation effects or the capabilities of the Apollo computer might be considered "strong" arguments because some knowledge of the subject matter is required to understand the debunking?

I may just be paraphrasing your point, but it sounds like the perceived strength of the argument is directly proportional to the depth of the ignorance of the person making the argument.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Rob260259 on June 24, 2012, 04:02:58 AM
Some years ago I was banned by him after some comments on his YT videos. Yes, the guy has invested a truly enormous amount of time and energy in this conspiracy position. Let alone all of his ego. The guy really committed himself publicly. Most likely he started several years ago with a naive belief and sincere doubts, based on ignorance and distrust (a political agenda?) that the NASA Apollo Moon missions were faked. And of course he studied a lot more about space travel, unfortunately visiting mainly hoax websites and reading conspiracy books, and just when he came deep into the specs and details of Apollo he must have had second thoughts. Also, many credentialed people have patiently explained many of his stupidities and errors, in great detail (some of us commented on his videos about radiation effects, his 'revelations' about Apollo photography, math and physics calculations, and the capabilities of the Apollo computer, and many more things). I think he feels it's too late now. There is no turning back for him.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Obviousman on June 24, 2012, 07:31:46 AM
Also, many credentialed people have patiently explained many of his stupidities and errors, in great detail (some of us commented on his videos about radiation effects, his 'revelations' about Apollo photography, math and physics calculations, and the capabilities of the Apollo computer, and many more things).

This is the primary reason he irks me so; people who are qualified and experienced in the areas regarding the claims he makes have told him he is wrong, why he is wrong, and how he can prove to himself he is in error..... but he just chooses to ignore those who do actually know more than he does.

I simply cannot excuse such blatant wilful ignorance.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Chew on June 24, 2012, 10:32:16 AM
http://greylining.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/flounce-bingo.jpg?w=510

Heh. We need to play Moon hoaxer bingo with the next HB who comes to visit.
"No stars in the photos"
"Van Allen Belt radiation"
"Shadows aren't parallel"
"Computing power of the AGC"
"The gubmint always lies"
"If I ran the zoo" (or any appropriate Jay'ism)
"Wheat" e.g. the Russians were in on it in exchange for wheat
"Appeal to common sense"
"In my uninformed layperson's opinion..."
"Citing an unnamed source"
"I can't do the math but I can tell just by looking at it..."
"Compartmentalization"
The center square will be "I'm just asking questions". The center square is supposed to be a freebie but since HBs always start off with that it is in all practicality a freebie.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 24, 2012, 10:38:43 AM
http://greylining.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/flounce-bingo.jpg?w=510

Heh. We need to play Moon hoaxer bingo with the next HB who comes to visit.
"No stars in the photos"
"Van Allen Belt radiation"
"Shadows aren't parallel"
"Computing power of the AGC"
"The gubmint always lies"
"If I ran the zoo" (or any appropriate Jay'ism)
"Wheat" e.g. the Russians were in on it in exchange for wheat
"Appeal to common sense"
"In my uninformed layperson's opinion..."
"Citing an unnamed source"
"I can't do the math but I can tell just by looking at it..."
"Compartmentalization"
The center square will be "I'm just asking questions". The center square is supposed to be a freebie but since HBs always start off with that it is in all practicality a freebie.

What's the prize if we win?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Chew on June 24, 2012, 11:18:53 AM
You get to post "Bingo! We've heard the same lame arguments that were debunked decades ago so many times before we realized we could play bingo with them so we did. Here's my card:" <insert screencap of card.>

Or fame and glory.

Or a pair of sweatsocks.

Your choice.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 24, 2012, 11:27:24 AM
I'm thinking about making a playing card for this. Do I make one card that everyone can use, or do the "lame arguments" have to be placed in different squares for each person so we don't all yell "BINGO!" at the same time? The first option is obviously a lot easier for me, but less fun.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Chew on June 24, 2012, 11:51:43 AM
Yeah, the squares should be randomized, except the center square. But how do we use them? Make a screen cap then use Paint or Gimp to mark them off? Or a website we can bookmark and that lets us mark squares as we find them, i.e. it's interactive? Maybe use Google Docs spreadsheet?

Of course, being the sciency types we'll have to back-up our claims with links to the posts where the HB made the claim.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Noldi400 on June 24, 2012, 11:57:50 AM
Quote
Most likely he started several years ago with a naive belief and sincere doubts, based on ignorance and distrust (a political agenda?) that the NASA Apollo Moon missions were faked.

And at some point, fell in with bad companions - Kaysing and Ralph. Somehow he seems to have latched on to Ralph Rene as a mentor. All hope may have been lost at that point.

==================================================

To the "Strong" and "Weak" arguments I should have added another category, my personal favorite: "Bewildering" arguments. Like this gem (paraphrased): In the diagram of the LM tether system, the tether would obviously pull the astronaut off-balance to the left. So how could they have possibly piloted the LM?

==================================================

If we need more Bingo items, so we can make up different cards, do we need more lame/hackneyed arguments? I'll contribute:

"Kubrick"
"Fake Dutch moon rock"
Any claim of engineering or physics credentials by someone who doesn't understand grade-school level science.

Cuz I really need a pair of those sweatsocks.

Edited for spelling.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Chew on June 24, 2012, 12:06:38 PM
"Kubrick"
"Fake Dutch moon rock"
Any claim of engineering or physics credentials by someone who doesn't understand grade-school level science.

Good ones! "Kubrick" Heh. That can be shorthand for anything from Dark Side of the Moon.

"Orbital mechanics fail"
"Thermodynamics fail"
"Newtonian law of motion fail"
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Abaddon on June 24, 2012, 02:00:55 PM
Dammit "Appeal to common" sense was one of mine.

"Appeal to Gubmint Infallibility/Omnipotence"
"Appeal to Gubmint Incompetence"

Note: These must go in the same line/column.

ETA:

"400,000 individuals were in on it."
"Compartmentalisation meant no-one but 6 at the top really knew about it."

These must also go on the same line or column.

Do diagonals count?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 24, 2012, 02:08:37 PM
Can we make "C-rock" the trump word? If it appears, it's house be default. Simply because it has to be the most absurd, ridiculous, crazed, bananas, utterly moronic theory every proposed. Others may include

Double film speed.
Astronauts on wires.
Front projection.
Waving flag.
Fall off.
Faked telemetry.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 24, 2012, 02:10:58 PM
I'm thinking about making a playing card for this. Do I make one card that everyone can use, or do the "lame arguments" have to be placed in different squares for each person so we don't all yell "BINGO!" at the same time? The first option is obviously a lot easier for me, but less fun.

I like the idea of producing randomised cards for everyone. It could be done with a spreadsheet.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Abaddon on June 24, 2012, 02:13:22 PM
Can we make "C-rock" the trump word? If it appears, it's house be default. Simply because it has to be the most absurd, ridiculous, crazed, bananas, utterly moronic theory every proposed. Others may include


Sorry, no. We can't do that. Everyone would mark that square.

Then again, we would all be winners.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Zakalwe on June 24, 2012, 02:30:04 PM
"No blast crater"
"Hassleblad film would get hot/cold"
"Lunar rocks returned by robot"

 ;) ;D
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 24, 2012, 02:31:43 PM
Then again, we would all be winners.

That's the point. If anyone brought the C-rock argument to forum, it would be like the super word because it is the most
idiotic theory ever proposed. I have yet to see it presented here, but might be wrong. The stupid burns that much when the C-rock is mentioned it finishes the game by default, as I don't think I could take the thread seriously any more. Anyone that still believes the C-rock needs putting out of their misery.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 24, 2012, 02:33:11 PM
"No blast crater"
"Hassleblad film would get hot/cold"
"Lunar rocks returned by robot"

 ;) ;D

All photos were perfect.
There should have been dust on the footpads.
The rocks were faked in a secret NASA lab.
You can bounce lasers of the moon anyway.
Wet sand.
Coarse sand.

How the cup runeth over with such idiocy.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Chew on June 24, 2012, 03:07:38 PM
Can we make "C-rock" the trump word? If it appears, it's house be default. Simply because it has to be the most absurd, ridiculous, crazed, bananas, utterly moronic theory every proposed. Others may include

Double film speed.
Astronauts on wires.
Front projection.
Waving flag.
Fall off.
Faked telemetry.

What is 'fall off'?

The C-rock is pretty amazingly freaking stupid. How about if they bring up the C-rock we get to fill in any adjacent square? This would require programming the randomized cards so the C-rock square is never on the outside, but I'm sure LO handle it.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 24, 2012, 03:14:16 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... Apollo Hoax Bingo! (http://apollohoax.net/bingo/)

I would have liked to generate the card as an image but that's difficult to do. Maybe in the next version. In the meantime, you can just take a screenshot. When you get a Bingo upload your card as an attachment to a post.

Should we have different cards for each HB? The problem with that is they might run away before anyone can claim a Bingo. So one card for all HBs?

I can add more buzz words/phrases any time. Here is what I've got so far:


You're a government shill!
No stars in the photos
Van Allen Belt radiation
Shadows aren't parallel
Computing power of the AGC
The gubmint always lies!
If I ran the zoo...
It's just common sense...
Wet or sifted sand
In my opinion...
Open your eyes!
Wake up!
Waving flag
Uses LEM instead of LM
Astronauts would have been too hot
Astronauts would have been too cold
Astronauts look nervous during interviews
Neil Armstrong never does interviews
6 feet of lead shielding would be required
Suspicious deaths
Sheep / Sheeple
Stanley Kubrick
The 'Missing' Apollo 11 footage
Aliens
You've been brainwashed!
Citing an unnamed source
I can't do the math but I can tell just by looking at it...
Compartmentalization
The Illuminati or The Freemasons (or both)
I don't believe in a hoax but...
Photoshop
The LM should have left a blast crater on the Moon
The Apollo missions were too perfect
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: gillianren on June 24, 2012, 03:22:22 PM
Traditionally, each player gets a separate card; the HBs would then essentially be the Bingo callers.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Chew on June 24, 2012, 03:27:31 PM
That's beautiful, LO!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Chew on June 24, 2012, 03:34:48 PM
Can you add?
C-rock
Linking to Jack White's "research" that wasn't intended to make the reader facepalm. i.e. the link was intended as a serious argument for a hoax
Any use of claims made in "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon"
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 24, 2012, 03:35:56 PM
Thanks, Chew! :)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 24, 2012, 03:45:04 PM
Brilliant, I love it!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 24, 2012, 03:46:53 PM
Thanks, Emma. :)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 24, 2012, 03:48:28 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... Apollo Hoax Bingo! (http://apollohoax.net/bingo/)

I would have liked to generate the card as an image but that's difficult to do. Maybe in the next version. In the meantime, you can just take a screenshot. When you get a Bingo upload your card as an attachment to a post.

Should we have different cards for each HB? The problem with that is they might run away before anyone can claim a Bingo. So one card for all HBs?

How many cards can we use at a time?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 24, 2012, 03:56:44 PM
Then again, we would all be winners.

That's the point. If anyone brought the C-rock argument to forum, it would be like the super word because it is the most
idiotic theory ever proposed. I have yet to see it presented here, but might be wrong. The stupid burns that much when the C-rock is mentioned it finishes the game by default, as I don't think I could take the thread seriously any more. Anyone that still believes the C-rock needs putting out of their misery.
Currently being used by former forum member (has he registered since we got the new forum?) Turbonium who is currently active on the unexplained mysteries forum.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=227095
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 24, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
Can you add?
C-rock

Done. :)

I've also added:

 - Links to a YouTube video
 - Claims to be new to the hoax theory but immediately attacks JayUtah
 - Thinks ApolloHoax.net and Clavius are the same website
 - Doesn't realize 'Darkside of the Moon' was a mockumentary

Quote
Linking to Jack White's "research" that wasn't intended to make the reader facepalm. i.e. the link was intended as a serious argument for a hoax
Any use of claims made in "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon"

I think those might be a bit too broad for one square on the grid.

How many cards can we use at a time?

As many as you would like. I think it would be funny/amazing if someone got enough squares on their cards to spell out "APOLLO HOAX".
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 24, 2012, 04:09:35 PM
Can you add?
C-rock

Done. :)

I've also added:

 - Links to a YouTube video
 - Claims to be new to the hoax theory but immediately attacks JayUtah
 - Thinks ApolloHoax.net and Clavius are the same website
 - Doesn't realize 'Darkside of the Moon' was a mockumentary

Quote
Linking to Jack White's "research" that wasn't intended to make the reader facepalm. i.e. the link was intended as a serious argument for a hoax
Any use of claims made in "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon"

I think those might be a bit too broad for one square on the grid.

How many cards can we use at a time?

As many as you would like. I think it would be funny/amazing if someone got enough squares on their cards to spell out "APOLLO HOAX".

cool.  now we just need some active HBs
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Al Johnston on June 24, 2012, 04:19:06 PM
Nice one LO! ;D
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 24, 2012, 04:22:10 PM
Thanks Al! :)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 24, 2012, 04:30:23 PM
Thanks Al! :)

Thanks LO. I have my card and am ready to play. Come on HBs.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Bob B. on June 24, 2012, 04:37:56 PM
Here's a few others if you need more:

LM not tested
Blueprints destroyed
Soviet superiority
We haven't returned
Rocks collected by robots
No exhaust flame visible
Film would melt
Fluttering flag
Identical backgrounds
Looks normal at double speed
Solar flares
Whistle blowers
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: gillianren on June 24, 2012, 04:43:57 PM
As an added bonus, I have just learned how to take a screenshot!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 24, 2012, 04:46:07 PM
Thanks, Bob. I don't think there can be too many. Adding more will create more variety in the cards.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 24, 2012, 04:47:40 PM
As an added bonus, I have just learned how to take a screenshot!

It comes in handy. But still, I wish I could have generated the game card as an image so people only had to right-click on it and click "Save image as".
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Bob B. on June 24, 2012, 04:57:05 PM
This is the primary reason he irks me so; people who are qualified and experienced in the areas regarding the claims he makes have told him he is wrong, why he is wrong, and how he can prove to himself he is in error..... but he just chooses to ignore those who do actually know more than he does.

Who is "he"?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 24, 2012, 04:59:01 PM
Here's a few others if you need more:

LM not tested

Armstrong crashed the LLRV before the lunar landing in 1969.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 24, 2012, 04:59:51 PM
This is the primary reason he irks me so; people who are qualified and experienced in the areas regarding the claims he makes have told him he is wrong, why he is wrong, and how he can prove to himself he is in error..... but he just chooses to ignore those who do actually know more than he does.

Who is "he"?

The antipodean with the whiny nasal voice and maths skills of a chimp, he who shall not be named at these boards.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 24, 2012, 05:16:09 PM
How about

The Russians were in on it
The LM is too small inside
They needed a huge rocket to get off the Earth, that tiny one could not get them off the Moon
Who filmed the first steps
Who filmed the takeoff
Apollo 18
We only went once, in 1969
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Chew on June 24, 2012, 05:29:43 PM
Here's a few others if you need more:

LM not tested

Armstrong crashed the LLRV before the lunar landing in 1969.

Alternatively, some hoax idjits have said he crashed the prototype LM.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 24, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
How about

The Russians were in on it
The LM is too small inside
They needed a huge rocket to get off the Earth, that tiny one could not get them off the Moon
Who filmed the first steps
Who filmed the takeoff
Apollo 18
We only went once, in 1969

Thanks Emma. I've added those, with a couple small changes:

- The spacecraft was too small inside (DAKDAK was concerned about the volume of the CM, so this change will cover both possibilities)
- Only aware of Apollo 11 and 13
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: raven on June 24, 2012, 07:07:46 PM
Apollo moon rocks are meteorites
Apollo moon rocks  were made on Earth.
Two metres of lead needed for radiation protection
The Saturn V was too small
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on June 24, 2012, 07:15:16 PM
From what I've observed from HB behavior, a "weak" argument is one that was once considered strong but has been so thoroughly debunked that even most HBs now realized it is wrong.

And so the conspiracist duly trots it out as a straw-man concession.  "We all know the stars wouldn't show up in photos, but..."  Pretty much every conspiracist follows this tactic to show that he really is reasonable and is willing to think critically about his own claims.  Instead it usually backfires.  The critic can say, "You were able to concede the star visibility point. Why won't you concede this other point that is equally wrong?"
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 24, 2012, 07:18:53 PM
It was filmed underwater....     ;)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: raven on June 24, 2012, 07:55:01 PM
It was filmed underwater....     ;)
It was filmed in gaseous Uranium Hexafluoride.
Yes, I have encountered that, and as far as I could tell, they were serious.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 24, 2012, 07:59:53 PM
As entertaining as some of these ideas for the bingo spaces are, I think we need to limit the overall number of possibilities and weed out some of the more obscure, or else nobody will ever win.

A previous forum regular here suggested on another site that it was filmed in superfluid helium.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 24, 2012, 08:32:03 PM
As entertaining as some of these ideas for the bingo spaces are, I think we need to limit the overall number of possibilities and weed out some of the more obscure, or else nobody will ever win.

That's a good point. So yeah, I think we've got enough for now. We'll try it out (assuming we get another HB) and make adjustments if necessary.

We won't limit it to one HB per card, so if we get two or three HBs the game should move faster.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Bob B. on June 24, 2012, 10:18:22 PM
As entertaining as some of these ideas for the bingo spaces are, I think we need to limit the overall number of possibilities and weed out some of the more obscure, or else nobody will ever win.

I think traditional bingo uses the numbers 1 to 75, so, at least in theory, I don't have a problem with having a large number of possibilities; however, I agree the obscure ones should be weeded out.  In real bingo, every number has an equal probability of being called, so we should use only those items that have a reasonably good chance of showing up in an HB debate to try to even out the odds.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: AtomicDog on June 24, 2012, 11:08:50 PM
We really went to the moon, but faked the photos (for some crazy reason) anyway.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: gillianren on June 24, 2012, 11:13:39 PM
- Only aware of Apollo 11 and 13

Which makes you wonder what they thought happened to 12.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 24, 2012, 11:36:02 PM
- The spacecraft was too small inside (DAKDAK was concerned about the volume of the CM, so this change will cover both possibilities)
Should we include claims so bizarre and idiosyncratic to one CT that even most CTs don't repeat them? Or should we limit ourselves to claims that gain general traction and are constantly repeated?

I'd add "the claimed laser reflectors could be natural". Yes, this goes beyond pointing out that pre-Apollo laser ranging experiments were done off the moon; it claims that the retroreflectors now said to be there are natural surface features. And besides, they could have been placed by robots...
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: pzkpfw on June 25, 2012, 12:35:04 AM
IDW (don't ask) once claimed 11 was faked but the other landings were real (though he also thought the 13 crisis was staged).

I'd suggest the "We only went once, in 1969" entry be made more general (unless that's really meant to be just about people who've only ever heard of 11 yet have an opinion...).
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: raven on June 25, 2012, 12:59:22 AM
Would this warrant its own space? I've heard it claimed missions from 1969-72 were fake, because of the Van Allen Belts, which is a bit of a contradiction, no?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on June 25, 2012, 01:51:47 AM
So are we actually going to play this game?
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Zakalwe on June 25, 2012, 12:21:31 PM
We just need some hoax believers now......
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Noldi400 on June 25, 2012, 12:24:21 PM
Quote
We just need some hoax believers now......

:::: crickets ::::

Maybe they all moved to Australia...
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 25, 2012, 01:27:50 PM
I've got a feeling there were only a half dozen or so active hoax believers on the entire internet (not counting sock puppets) and either I have banned them, we've scared them away, or they've died of old age.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 25, 2012, 01:47:03 PM
Active HBs willing to get on this forum, anyways!

Because trust me, there's lots of HBs out there.  One was in my Astronomy class in Del Mar College.  Which made me wonder why she took the course.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: twik on June 25, 2012, 01:57:19 PM
Active HBs willing to get on this forum, anyways!

Because trust me, there's lots of HBs out there.  One was in my Astronomy class in Del Mar College.  Which made me wonder why she took the course.

To get arguments she could use, of course. And if she doesn't get them, she can then argue that the truth is being suppressed by Academia.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: sts60 on June 25, 2012, 02:00:45 PM
I've got a feeling there were only a half dozen or so active hoax believers on the entire internet (not counting sock puppets) and either I have banned them, we've scared them away, or they've died of old age.
You could issue a blanket amnesty, and see what happens. 
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 25, 2012, 02:02:18 PM
Honestly, since half the fun of this site is debating with the CTs, maybe you should be much more lax with the rules.  If they say or do stupid things, it just makes them look that much more foolish.  Real bans should be for if they, like, try to hack the site, do illegal things, interrupt other threads to push their CTs, etc.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: gillianren on June 25, 2012, 02:34:30 PM
No, I don't like that idea.  Even if it's half the fun, I don't consider the disruptions worth it.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: grmcdorman on June 25, 2012, 03:52:31 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you... Apollo Hoax Bingo! (http://apollohoax.net/bingo/)

I would have liked to generate the card as an image but that's difficult to do. Maybe in the next version. In the meantime, you can just take a screenshot. When you get a Bingo upload your card as an attachment to a post.

[snip]


ImageMagick provides command-line tools to do what you want; basically
   convert filename -annotate +x+y "text" outputfilename
See http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/annotating/#anno_on

Runs on Linux, Mac, and Windows.

Download from imagemagick.org.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 25, 2012, 04:27:35 PM
No, I don't like that idea.  Even if it's half the fun, I don't consider the disruptions worth it.

Agreed. Their gish gallops and ranting should only be tolerated for so long, enough to expose them and leave a trail of dirt behind that all can see. If they can't provide evidence or answer the questions posed, then they are wasting time, and in my view they are attention seeking wannabees. Why waste time on such people.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 25, 2012, 04:40:50 PM
Honestly, since half the fun of this site is debating with the CTs, maybe you should be much more lax with the rules.  If they say or do stupid things, it just makes them look that much more foolish.  Real bans should be for if they, like, try to hack the site, do illegal things, interrupt other threads to push their CTs, etc.
My ideal purpose for the forum is to provide a record of what hoax believers actually say and to respond with critiques of their reasoning and relevant factual explanations about the Apollo program.  When the HBs have reached a point when it is clear to any reasonable reader that they can no longer say anything new, then it is time to let them go because they have served their purpose.  We are pretty liberal in letting HBs have a say, but if we don't ban them at some point, the place might get overrun.     
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: SolusLupus on June 25, 2012, 04:41:38 PM
Fair points!
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 25, 2012, 08:23:50 PM
ImageMagick provides command-line tools to do what you want; basically
   convert filename -annotate +x+y "text" outputfilename
See http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/annotating/#anno_on

Runs on Linux, Mac, and Windows.

Download from imagemagick.org.

Thanks, I'll look into it. I think I've tried to use Imagemagick before and discovered it wasn't installed on my server. And since I'm on a shared server I can't install it myself. But maybe things have changed since then. I do have access to the GD library which I've used to make captchas before, but positioning text into a 5x5 grid would be somewhat difficult.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 25, 2012, 11:27:36 PM
A previous forum regular here suggested on another site that it was filmed in superfluid helium.

If they had any idea exactly how much superfluid helium costs, the practical difficulties of containing huge quantities of superfluid and the very problem of keeping a man alive while immersed at close to absolute zero, then they would realise it is technically more feasible and cheaper to go to the moon. They really do make themselves look increasingly stupid with such bizarre ideas.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Obviousman on June 26, 2012, 06:36:46 AM
A previous forum regular here suggested on another site that it was filmed in superfluid helium.
They really do make themselves look increasingly stupid with such bizarre ideas.

It is something they excel at... really.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 26, 2012, 07:41:47 AM
A previous forum regular here suggested on another site that it was filmed in superfluid helium.

If they had any idea exactly how much superfluid helium costs, the practical difficulties of containing huge quantities of superfluid and the very problem of keeping a man alive while immersed at close to absolute zero, then they would realise it is technically more feasible and cheaper to go to the moon. They really do make themselves look increasingly stupid with such bizarre ideas.

That is Turbonium.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: twik on June 26, 2012, 09:11:53 AM
I see on the card that "I"m just asking questions!" is the free square, as it should be. This is a conspiratist's main ploy, because this frees them from any sort of intellectual rigor to defend their own beliefs.

I was recently rereading the VERY long thread from the poster called "stargazer" (ironically), who was arguing that stars weren't put in the photographic record because "any amateur astronomer would be able to tell they weren't real". Jay repeated asked him a rather simple thing - assuming that you have someone assigned the job to put in (physically or as post-process) the stars in photos, why couldn't it have been done? Stargazer did an impressive job of avoiding the question of how an amateur astronomer would have known where the stars should have been, but professional astronomers couldn't have placed them there deliberately. As I read it, I wondered how stargazer could not have realized how intellectually dishonest that stance was, and be able to keep arguing it with a straight face.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Andromeda on June 26, 2012, 09:18:21 AM
AdvancedBoy couldn't hold a candle to Moonman for sheer bloody-mindedness though.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 26, 2012, 09:56:24 AM
That is Turbonium.

I was thinking of him the other day, after Advancedboy danced a little jig after I met his challenge to provide calculations regarding the apparent size difference between two distant objects. Turbonium once challenged me in a similar fashion. I said the astronauts on the 'infamous' Apollo 11 broadcast where Sibrel insists they had a transparency of Earth stuck on the window would be able to see the whole Earth outside the hatch window wherever they were in the cabin if they were at 100,000 km distance. He expressed disbelief, I provided the simple trig that showed they would need to be over 13 feet away from the window before its angular size reached that of the distant Earth. His response was to acknowledge the simple mathematics of the situation and concede the point. Turbonium may be infuriating and ridiculous at times, but at least he is usually polite and isn't so stupid as to challenge really obvious mathematical proofs. Advancedboy couldn't even bring himself to that standard.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 26, 2012, 12:09:07 PM
Turbonium may be infuriating and ridiculous at times, but at least he is usually polite and isn't so stupid as to challenge really obvious mathematical proofs. Advancedboy couldn't even bring himself to that standard.

Well done you, and well done Turbonium. It's nice to hear that a HB can concede an argument.  :D
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Echnaton on June 26, 2012, 02:10:14 PM
Because crank beliefs run in packs, we should also have a box for a HB bringing up another conspiracy topic.  Either within the thread to support the moon hoax or by starting a new thread.  Or one box for each.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Noldi400 on June 26, 2012, 03:00:20 PM
I realize it wouldn't be practical, but it's really too bad we can't include my (as I've said before) personal favorite: the "bewildering" argument.

For example, I saw a video the other day by the Hunched one in which he compares two images of the same rock - he even refers to them as a stereoscopic pair - and finds it suspicious that the rock's features are slightly different in the two images, as though they were taken from different angles.  He somehow found this suspicious.....

:::: facepalm ::::
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: frenat on June 26, 2012, 04:20:53 PM
Turbonium may be infuriating and ridiculous at times, but at least he is usually polite and isn't so stupid as to challenge really obvious mathematical proofs. Advancedboy couldn't even bring himself to that standard.

Well done you, and well done Turbonium. It's nice to hear that a HB can concede an argument.  :D
He doesn't seem to ever conded on the Unexplained Mysteries forum.  He's been going on about the C rock lately.  Showing him the magazine cover without the C published right after the mission only brings claims that it is blurry so the C can't be seen.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: DataCable on June 26, 2012, 05:37:53 PM
and finds it suspicious that the rock's features are slightly different in the two images, as though they were taken from different angles.  He somehow found this suspicious.....
That reminds me of NasaScam's <cough> "analysis" of photographs from 17, commenting that they must have used the same "backdrop" even though the locations were supposedly miles apart.  But then he notes that some background details have been shifted around.  Well, are the backdrops identical or not?  Make up yer frakkin' mind.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on June 26, 2012, 11:14:42 PM
For example, I saw a video the other day by the Hunched one in which he compares two images of the same rock - he even refers to them as a stereoscopic pair - and finds it suspicious that the rock's features are slightly different in the two images, as though they were taken from different angles.  He somehow found this suspicious.....
He actually used a different picture for the two images in a stereo pair? Wow, he's making progress; usually his so-called stereo pairs consist of two copies of the exact same photo. Maybe that's why he can't figure out why two separate pictures show the scene from slightly different angles.

I think there's something very seriously wrong with his visual perception and spatial reasoning. Maybe he had 'lazy eye' as a kid? I've repeatedly asked him but he refuses to answer.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 26, 2012, 11:44:12 PM
Showing him the magazine cover without the C published right after the mission only brings claims that it is blurry so the C can't be seen.

Sigh, forever shifting the goalposts and making crap up, those conspiracy theorists are.  Herh herh herh.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ineluki on June 28, 2012, 09:31:46 AM
He doesn't seem to ever conded on the Unexplained Mysteries forum.  He's been going on about the C rock lately.  Showing him the magazine cover without the C published right after the mission only brings claims that it is blurry so the C can't be seen.

After acting like like a defective turntable and repeating the old "radiation"-nonsense for 4 years, and the "knee"-sillyness of the last year, it's at least a new (for him) lie.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Noldi400 on June 28, 2012, 06:28:54 PM
Quote
He actually used a different picture for the two images in a stereo pair? Wow, he's making progress;

In his most recent YT videos he puts two different pics of the same thing - not a stereopair, just two pictures - side by side and calls it a stereoscopic pair. I guess he's getting warmer.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Rob260259 on October 06, 2012, 05:15:41 AM
We just need some hoax believers now......



http://apollohoax.net/bingo/


Is this game still 'active'..? Because we can expect a nice chap soon (Edwardwb1001), really convinced that NASA faked it all. His best shot (I presume) is the BBC 1970 interview with Neil Armstrong done by Patrick Moore.

He questions Collins' statement regarding the stars, and Armstrong being unable to see any on the supposed long trip to the moon. Why an astronomer such as Moore thinks that there should have been stars brightly visible in the lunar sky, so much, that he thought they might even be visible in the solar corona. Et cetera, et cetera.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Abaddon on October 06, 2012, 04:26:11 PM
We just need some hoax believers now......

http://apollohoax.net/bingo/


Is this game still 'active'..? Because we can expect a nice chap soon (Edwardwb1001), really convinced that NASA faked it all. His best shot (I presume) is the BBC 1970 interview with Neil Armstrong done by Patrick Moore.

He questions Collins' statement regarding the stars, and Armstrong being unable to see any on the supposed long trip to the moon. Why an astronomer such as Moore thinks that there should have been stars brightly visible in the lunar sky, so much, that he thought they might even be visible in the solar corona. Et cetera, et cetera.

Nothing new, then?

Dunno if the bingo is still active. Maybe eddy can reactivate it.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Rob260259 on October 06, 2012, 05:48:04 PM
Nope, nothing new I'm afraid. Same story, same 'revelations'. Anyway, Ed says he's going to show a NASA source which is very contradicting... I can't wait.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on October 07, 2012, 01:19:11 AM
Why an astronomer such as Moore thinks that there should have been stars brightly visible in the lunar sky, so much, that he thought they might even be visible in the solar corona. Et cetera, et cetera.
The solar corona is visible only when the photosphere (the really bright part) is obscured. On earth this happens only during a total eclipse of the sun; there's far too much atmospheric scattering when this happens at sunrise and sunset.

Total solar eclipses are so rare and so short that the ability to produce one almost on demand in space was and still is very scientifically useful. Hence the experiments to photograph the corona on many Apollo missions, and the "coronagraphs" that are important instruments on space-borne solar telescopes.

So Moore was asking if even the sun's corona was bright enough to obscure stars when the solar photosphere was obscured by the moon. He obviously knew that the sun itself was plenty bright to do that.

If Moore was an astronomer, it's quite likely that he saw a total eclipse himself and wanted to compare the crew's experience with his own. After all, the mechanism that let the crew view the corona was very similar to that of a total solar eclipse. In both cases the moon, lacking an atmosphere, did not scatter light from the photosphere around its limb, leaving the corona visible.



Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on October 07, 2012, 01:40:53 AM
BTW, a look at the many SOHO coronagraph movies shows that many stars are visible through the dimmer parts of the solar corona. Planets and presumably the brightest stars are visible through even the brighter parts of the corona, at least when you look more than a couple of solar radii away from the photosphere.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on October 08, 2012, 11:20:33 AM
The astronauts weren't looking for stars in the solar corona.  Moore's question is whether stars were visible elsewhere in the sky during the time they were photographing the solar corona.  He knew that good seeing conditions would arise when the Moon was eclipsing the Sun.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on October 08, 2012, 05:29:42 PM
Ah, thanks.

I've seen only one total solar eclipse (February 26, 1979 in Oregon along the Columbia River east of the Cascades) and was surprised that the sky didn't get as dark as I expected. Only the planets and brighter stars were easily visible even though I had dark-adapted my eyes before totality. The sky was a very dark blue but not quite black. The horizon was bright in every direction, and only the center of the sun (moon, actually) looked completely black. I doubt it was actually darker than anywhere else in the sky, it was undoubtedly an optical illusion due to the sharp contrast with the corona at the moon's edge.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: JayUtah on October 09, 2012, 12:40:04 AM
I was at Kanarrahville, Utah recently for Ground Zero of this year's annular eclipse.  It got eerily dark, but not so dark that you could see stars.  The guy next to me photographed a jet contrail transiting the eclipse.  It was a pretty striking photograph.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Count Zero on October 09, 2012, 03:10:35 AM
I'm already planning for 2017:
http://www.mcglaun.com/eclipse/2017/maps.htm (http://www.mcglaun.com/eclipse/2017/maps.htm)
http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2017_GoogleMapFull.html (http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2017_GoogleMapFull.html)
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Bob B. on October 10, 2012, 09:45:13 AM
I've seen only one total solar eclipse (February 26, 1979 in Oregon along the Columbia River east of the Cascades) and was surprised that the sky didn't get as dark as I expected. Only the planets and brighter stars were easily visible even though I had dark-adapted my eyes before totality. The sky was a very dark blue but not quite black. The horizon was bright in every direction, and only the center of the sun (moon, actually) looked completely black. I doubt it was actually darker than anywhere else in the sky, it was undoubtedly an optical illusion due to the sharp contrast with the corona at the moon's edge.

I've seen three eclipses and I've never been able to see anything other than Venus, Jupiter and Mercury.  It's never gotten dark enough to see stars.  As far as I know, no one around me was able to see stars either.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on October 10, 2012, 10:55:08 PM
I was at Kanarrahville, Utah recently for Ground Zero of this year's annular eclipse.  It got eerily dark, but not so dark that you could see stars.  The guy next to me photographed a jet contrail transiting the eclipse.  It was a pretty striking photograph.
And we were on the south rim of the Grand Canyon. It didn't really get dark at all, absolutely nothing like a total eclipse, even though it got noticeably dim. I had hoped the sun would be low enough in elevation to photograph it above the canyon without a filter, but this was not possible.

I also watched Venus transit the sun as it set here in San Diego, ready to snap a picture through my telescope, again without a filter. I was unable to do it until the sun was directly on the horizon; in fact only my first picture actually captured Venus, then it was below the trees.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on October 10, 2012, 10:59:44 PM
I've seen three eclipses and I've never been able to see anything other than Venus, Jupiter and Mercury.  It's never gotten dark enough to see stars.  As far as I know, no one around me was able to see stars either.
And I'm wondering why that is. Is the corona bright enough to wash them out, or is it light scattered by the earth and atmosphere from outside the umbra?

I tend to think the latter. During the 1979 eclipse the horizon was rather bright in every direction. It must have been the source of the light that kept the sky a dark blue rather than black, even in mid-totality.

Still, it's easily one of the most impressive sights anyone can witness from the earth's surface. Those last few seconds before totality are as if someone's turning down the house lights on a dimmer. We could see the umbra rushing toward us, and I almost felt like ducking.


Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Count Zero on October 11, 2012, 10:28:09 AM
In the last momensts before totality, when the sun is 99% covered, you still have more light than a brightly-lit room.  It's roughly the same light-level you would have if you were standing on a moon of Saturn.

When totality comes, you're going from well-lighted-room to darkness - but only for a couple of minutes; and you're spending a significant amount of those minutes looking at bright things like the solar corona and the horizon.

Your eyes simply do not have the opportunity to adapt enough to see stars.

I've seen two totol eclipses, and both times I was too busy screaming and jumping around to even think about looking for stars.  I'll probably be the same way in 2017.  I can see the stars on any clear night.  I'll want to be looking at the corona & horizon!
Title: Re: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Glom on October 11, 2012, 10:34:25 AM
In the last momensts before totality, when the sun is 99% covered, you still have more light than a brightly-lit room.  It's roughly the same light-level you would have if you were standing on a moon of Saturn.

When totality comes, you're going from well-lighted-room to darkness - but only for a couple of minutes; and you're spending a significant amount of those minutes looking at bright things like the solar corona and the horizon.

Your eyes simply do not have the opportunity to adapt enough to see stars.

I've seen two totol eclipses, and both times I was too busy screaming and jumping around to even think about looking for stars.  I'll probably be the same way in 2017.  I can see the stars on any clear night.  I'll want to be looking at the corona & horizon!

And then the flash and you go blind.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: DataCable on October 11, 2012, 07:50:01 PM
And then the flash and you go blind.
June Wheeler: Like my uncle Tito used to say, "It's always darkest just before the dawn."
[beat]
Bob Wheeler: Burned out his retinas starin' into an e-clipse.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: ka9q on October 11, 2012, 08:49:12 PM
Your eyes simply do not have the opportunity to adapt enough to see stars.
During the 1979 eclipse I actually tried to keep my eyes closed as much as possible between first and second contact so they'd be dark adapted for totality. I figured I could still see the entire partial phase after totality. I think I began really watching only in the last minute or so before totality, but even then I couldn't really see stars. But the fact that the sky was a dark blue rather than black says I couldn't have been too badly adapted to the dark.
Title: Re: Strong arguments versus weak arguments.
Post by: Zakalwe on October 12, 2012, 03:10:05 AM
We just need some hoax believers now......

http://apollohoax.net/bingo/


Is this game still 'active'..? Because we can expect a nice chap soon (Edwardwb1001), really convinced that NASA faked it all. His best shot (I presume) is the BBC 1970 interview with Neil Armstrong done by Patrick Moore.

He questions Collins' statement regarding the stars, and Armstrong being unable to see any on the supposed long trip to the moon. Why an astronomer such as Moore thinks that there should have been stars brightly visible in the lunar sky, so much, that he thought they might even be visible in the solar corona. Et cetera, et cetera.

Nothing new, then?

Dunno if the bingo is still active. Maybe eddy can reactivate it.

Well....we've had the blast crater already.....