Author Topic: Hufschmid's website-"wow, its terrible," plus a few things I can't debunk myself  (Read 634 times)

Offline Everett

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Well, as I was reading the thread stargazer started, I decided to head over to Hufschmid's site myself for a bit of entertainment.
http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Apollo_NASA.html

Wow, it's bad. First off, I looked at this page:
http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Science_Challenge_26.html
The correct answer is, of course, C, but nowhere on his site can I find what he thinks the answer is. He might have actually gotten it (his own question) right. Did he? Also, looking at the drawing stargazer linked to, I can immediately see that he assumes no light is reflected back toward the source. Which is, of course, wrong. Wouldn't that mean that, for lack of a better way to put, looking away from the sun you couldn't see the moon AT ALL? Just a black expanse.

The funny part was reading his .pdf, (http://hugequestions.com/Eric/ApolloMoonHoax.pdf) where he says manufacturing technology was too primitive.
He actually seems amazed at the concept of a person actually standing in front of a machine and operating it, instead of a computer doing the work. Yes, in fact, this is how things were done until quite recently. Boy, he must be pretty young and not get out much. He actually can't seem to imagine that anything sophisticated was done before modern computers. Note to Hufschmid, if you're reading this - the SR-71 that you stated exists (since you quoted a pilot's experience as evidence) - it was built the same way, and it was designed using - you guessed it - a slide rule! A new idea at least, so give him credit for that.
He then goes to assume that Apollo somehow came out of nowhere, not as a result of nearly a decade of spaceflight. And of course,
Quote
Tell me one technical
achievement of the past that
we of today cannot do faster,
better, and for less money.
One example that comes to mind (thanks, Jay. (at least I think it was you)) is the Concorde. Built in the same decade, operated for years, yet there are no supersonic airliners today. Why? Nobody wants to pay for it.

Quote
Email your answer to:
PainfulQuestions@aol.com
Anybody want to send him said answer? And please post the response here, if you get one. :) Next up, he assumes the LM was never tested (which, of it course it was, both manned and unmanned.)
Quote
Where are the technical specs for the
lunar lander? For example, the top section blasted
off the moon with how much fuel ?

The bottom half was a rocket
with...how much fuel?? Is NASA
keeping this info a secret? If so, why?

That's a nice question. but why didn't you go look up the answer? ::)
Quote
How did two men live in this tiny module?
Why doesn't NASA provide details on how
they accomplished the miracle of keeping
men alive in an incredibly harsh environment?
Did anybody vomit from the zero gravity of
space? Did the astronauts wear diapers?
Seriously, do you even bother to do any research? It's free online, why not just go and answer you own question? Also this gem:
Quote
When they got
that working, they could send an unmanned rocket
to land on the moon, and then the lunar lander would
fly back to the earth
Point and laugh time! He thinks the LM returned to earth! He really didn't bother to do any research, did he?


Quote
NASA claims that the scientists were 100% confident that
the lunar rocket worked, so there was
no need to test it.
Doubly wrong. He then apparently seems amazed at EVA training at earth, both that it took place and that they actually put some effort into making it realistic.
And then the old "dry dust doesn't leave footprints." This more or less makes me want to scream at the screen "yes it does!" I distinctly remember amusing myself as a kid by leaving, gasp, footprints in some rather dusty dirt.

Quote
The astronauts also had a perfect
opportunity to demonstrate lunar gravity
and physics to the TV audience. For
example, an astronaut could have
dropped a handful of dirt at the same
time he dropped a rock. That would
show:
-
Dust falls as fast as rocks in a
vacuum.
-
Objects fall more slowly on the
moon.
But the astronauts wasted their time on flag photos and golfing. Were the astronauts boneheads? Or were they on the Earth?
Hey dingbat, they did exactly that, with the whole hammer and feather thing.

He has the unique angle that the photographs taken on the moon weren't good enough, since NASA gave them good cameras. Points at least for taking the opposite direction of usual. Then after a couple more pages, I get to something that's rather outside my area of expertise, and as such can't simply laugh at. The photograph on p.18 - what's the explanation for that one? For that matter, was it even taken on the moon? (Or was this just a training/artistic picture somebody took on earth? Dirt/dust on the lens for the clouds, if it was on the moon? It 'is' quite artsy, to the point of perhaps somebody made it for artistic reasons (edit):- WAIT A SECOND - that picture is in black and white, and all the cameras they took to the moon were in color. (Excepting Apollo 11's TV camera, but that didn't have a rover.) So somebody HAS retouched that image, likely to create exactly the pretty effect the image has. Likely was much more mundane in the actual picture. That also helps explain the 'clouds' and the solid white 'reflection'- it's a side effect of somebody using Photoshop's brightness/contrast or levels tool (or some other tool) far past where it was intended to go. I've run into the same problem myself when I try to grossly change the lightness/darkness of a texture. (Usually unsuccessfully, but I'm trying avoid that kind of contrast.)(end edit.)

On the next page - I've never actually used a film camera, too young for that (and even I know how stupid his "technology" claim above was). Is this how pictures taken on film looking into the sun normally look, regardless of what planet they're taken on? I don't know, I've never done it. The difference is that instead of screaming "conspiracy!" I actually ask someone who has done it whether that's right or not.

Plus a run of the mill grand unified conspiracy theory that is responsible for everything that happens ever, in the "Zionist jew" flavor this time. With the added fun of "fake conspiracy theorists who try to make the real truth seekers look bad."

So 'this' is who stargazer was quoting? And what has gone wrong with my generation that they can't imagine a world without computers? ::)
« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 12:00:57 AM by Everett »

Offline Rob48

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 42
Quote
WAIT A SECOND - that picture is in black and white, and all the cameras they took to the moon were in color. (Excepting Apollo 11's TV camera, but that didn't have a rover.) So somebody HAS retouched that image, likely to create exactly the pretty effect the image has. Likely was much more mundane in the actual picture. That also helps explain the 'clouds' and the solid white 'reflection'- it's a side effect of somebody using Photoshop's brightness/contrast or levels tool (or some other tool) far past where it was intended to go.

The picture you are referring to is AS17-136-20760.



That was a black-and-white photo (magazine 136 was B&W).

You were right with your initial guess: dust on the lens was likely responsible for the smearing. No photoshop or other editing.

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 743
Looks like there was something on the lens, which will show up clearest when the sun is shining directly on the front lens. And using a small aperture.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Apollo 957

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
Wow. Evidently not updated for years, as evidenced by ;

"Armstrong is a recluse
There's no denying that Neil Armstrong is hiding from the public and the media. We are supposed to believe that he is a shy, introverted freak.

A more sensible explanation is that he is ashamed, and doesn't want to lie."





Yes, he's hiding; in his grave.

Offline gillianren

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
    • My Letterboxd journal
Wow.  And seriously, who ever said "freak"?  "Shy" and "introverted" are sufficient and not actually insults!
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline bknight

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2145
I saw these pages a couple of years ago, around the time I joined here.  Same old stupid non researched material.  "Astronaut" George Bush, LOL, what a droll.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Abaddon

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 713
Wow. Evidently not updated for years, as evidenced by ;

"Armstrong is a recluse
There's no denying that Neil Armstrong is hiding from the public and the media. We are supposed to believe that he is a shy, introverted freak.

A more sensible explanation is that he is ashamed, and doesn't want to lie."





Yes, he's hiding; in his grave.
For a recluse he sure did a hell of a lot of interviews, lectures, speaking tours, etc.