Author Topic: Gardum's thread  (Read 3596 times)

Offline Trebor

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #45 on: September 09, 2017, 03:08:27 AM »
...
Ok one simple as short as I can as I do go on at times, we will do it scientifically ok ?
Doing things 'scientifically' requires providing sources. Something you have failed at already.

Offline Bryanpoprobson

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 597
  • Another Clown
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #46 on: September 09, 2017, 03:22:47 AM »
I'm afraid old Gollum, sorry I meant Gardum, (bryanpooprobsin? Really ;D ) even when he does provide links doesn't seem to understand them. He constantly rants on that anything in a vacuum and shade is instantly at just over absolute zero and links to a NASA document that says nothing of the sort.
He also likes to think that the Hassleblads were stored externally again pointing to a NASA loadout schedule that clearly states that the only externally stored camera was the TV camera in the MESA. That not withstanding several images were taken with "both" LM cameras before they opened the hatch. In typical hoax fashion he dismisses this evidence as NASA not getting its story straight. Not that storing the cameras externally would matter, as highlighted by the use of the mapping camera, even the film for that had to be recovered by a space walk.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 03:40:51 AM by Bryanpoprobson »
"Wise men speak because they have something to say!" "Fools speak, because they have to say something!" (Plato)

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1136
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #47 on: September 09, 2017, 05:33:24 AM »
Irrelevant gish-gallop snipped

You seem to labour under the confusion that verbosity equals competence in a subject. ::)

Please let me try to help you. Can you post up the single, most compelling part that has convinced you that the Apollo program did not happen as described in the archives? We can then address a single point rather than having you follow a scatter-gun approach.


If you can't manage that, then perhaps go back to some of the responses that you've already received. For example, you claimed that the equipment was not tested in the Lunar environment. That claim has been shown to be incorrect. Can you address this and either ask for further clarification or concede that your point was incorrect?

Finally, it would be very helpful if you could frame your responses without the childish name-calling and silly words (Film Fizzbag Fromage???). You are not 6, we are not 6 and this isn't a kindergarten playground. If you want to be treated seriously and as a responsible adult then please do everyone the kindness of acting seriously and as a responsible adult. If you can't, then you are probably better returning to YouTube comments where you will find an audience more suitable to your approach.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 05:39:56 AM by Zakalwe »
"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur"
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.

Offline smartcooky

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #48 on: September 09, 2017, 08:20:58 AM »
Frankly, I would settle for him posting in a comprehensible manner because most of the time, I can't understand what he has written.

Once he's done that he can leave out all the irrelevant stuff. No one here is interested in his day jet-skiing, waterskiing or his adventures on a sea biscuit.

And yes, Gardum, you WILL be expected to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. That is how evidentiary debates work. Hoax Believers thrive on innuendo, vague unsubstantiated claims, and indefinite unsupported assertions - details are very important; its the details that Hoax Believers hate, because they have no argument against them.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 08:26:01 AM by smartcooky »
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
►"Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline bknight

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #49 on: September 09, 2017, 09:08:54 AM »
SNIP
Post number three and still no links to image analysis, just vague allegations that can't be properly addressed.
Gardum, other than your daily activities, which we aren't really impressive with or don't care about what have you got for us concerning images taken by the Apollo astronauts on the moon?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Apollo 957

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #50 on: September 09, 2017, 09:16:02 AM »
Dealing with the claim of extreme and unmanageable temperatures;

The Lunar Sourcebook cites the surface temp of the Moon as -233°C to 123°C. If you, Gardum, disagree with these extremes, please cite your source and tell us how you measured them.

There's only one heat source; the Sun. The temp of the surface, assuming an open location, not in a crater's shadow, or such, reaches its peak in the middle of the lunar day, and descends to its lowest point during lunar night.

Recognise that this is a cycle of 28 Earth days, so for any one point on the surface, 14 days of sunlight, 14 days of dark. Once the temp has reached its low during the night, it can ONLY start to heat up at lunar dawn, when the sunlight hits it. Lunar noon is seven days later, so the increase of temp of the surface over those seven days is (233 + 123 =) 356 degrees. That's a temp rise of (356/7 =) 50 degrees per day, or approx 2 degrees per hour.

Objects will vary, but this gives an approximation of how quickly something will heat up in open sunlight on the Moon.

Take a Hasselblad camera out on an EVA of 4 hours, and this would suggest that, if it had the same reflectivity as the lunar surface, it's outer casing would heat up by 8 degrees. In fact, it was designed to be more reflective, and hence it would accept less heat than this.

 

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1013
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #51 on: September 09, 2017, 09:29:18 AM »
Any scientists here or just children that pick on line breaks or grammar ?

Correct use of the English language helps people understand what you're talking about. Your use of it so far makes that difficult. It's also a good indicator of your level of education. So far it's not looking good.

Quote
Photography in space with out an enclosure with part atmosphere and heating plate only done by NASA no other Nation has done this with a mechanical camera and Film Frizzbizz Fromage had placed a Link from the Soviets Photographic attempts on the Moon and when you read the article it explains quite clearly enclosure part Atmosphere and heating plate.

So which is it - only NASA use the method you describe or NASA and also the Soviets? Quote us the relevant bits so we can see exactly what you mean.

Quote
All Military and NASA photography before the Apollo missions during and after all had enclosures with part Atmosphere and heating plate, any one with any photographic experience with the Air force or any other department would know this.

All of them? Every photograph taken in space? Sure about that?


Offline Abaddon

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 714
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #52 on: September 09, 2017, 12:06:58 PM »
People here seem to pick on not enough line breaks then to many where is the Goldilocks faq so that I get it just right ?
Of course. Your style of wall-o-text makes your posts incomprehensible. For example...

Ok one simple as short as I can as I do go on at times, we will do it scientifically ok ?
Your very next sentence does not qualify as english.

Any scientists here or just children that pick on line breaks or grammar ?
Lots. Your point is?

Now in science we have a very simple set of steps with anything some one claims, step one is it repeatable by others ?
That is not step one in the scientific method.

Now LEO repeatable by many Nations and Companies there fore possible and scientifically proven as fact.

Unmanned vehicles to the Moon again repeatable done by many Nations and therefore proven a fact.
So what?

Photography in space with out an enclosure with part atmosphere and heating plate only done by NASA no other Nation has done this with a mechanical camera and Film Frizzbizz Fromage had placed a Link from the Soviets Photographic attempts on the Moon and when you read the article it explains quite clearly enclosure part Atmosphere and heating plate.
Incoherent. Is english not your first language?

All Military and NASA photography before the Apollo missions during and after all had enclosures with part Atmosphere and heating plate, any one with any photographic experience with the Air force or any other department would know this.
Um...the Apollo cameras had enclosures.

I am a little tired from my day out Jet Skiing and why you people doubt my age I have no clue ?
Well, you write like an entitled teen. Don't like that? Well then don't write in that incoherent way.

I will get my Wife to take a couple pictures next week end to prove and you can see my photo on the YouTube videos as I use my real name and photo there this site wanted a username so used my old Asherons Call name :)
You don't need to prove that you are on youtube. We know you are on youtube. Nobody cares.

From the responses I see I get the impression most of you are more the Children and whining little suckers at that, we aren't at school any more so please try and grow up or don't bother responding if all you can do is petty age games.
Strange, given that you are unable to construct simple sentences.

1956 is my Birth year and if required I will put a copy of my Birth cert lol.
I don't care. Pony up with the evidence for your claims.

Also as I said with my previous response that I can't use the letter Kodak sent us nor Hasselblad as they may be out there some where but if the people that inherited their parents or grand parents things were anything like my Brother in Laws it would all be in the garbage or sold.  I am sure many other Photographic groups of the time were also interested and I am sure some one out there may have the originals.
So you have nothing.

I don't class equipment as Special that is the believers realm and also NASA says this as well on a few things.
"Special". Right.

I will put a little more effort into my next post after the garbage responses of people jumping up and down that I didn't do the right line breaks or something else a waste of time.
Please do. If you are incoherent nobody will give you the time of day.

Lets try for some scientific responses please and fault my logic for scientific practice in real life as they can't repeat the experiment now themselves and probably won't till 2025 from all the articles I am reading.
so you believe Concord and supersonic trans-atlantic passenger travel are a hoax, right? Nobody can repeat that today, right?

Also Smartcooky not full of yourself are you lol even if you do say so yourself ?
Hurling insult, the inevitable bastion of the factually bereft.

Offline JayUtah

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2485
    • Clavius
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #53 on: September 09, 2017, 12:13:02 PM »
[Omitting the rambling rant about punctuality and jet skis.]
I would have made my own thread for the 100's of links I have gathered over the years that none of you have ever answered...

I have an entire web site full of answers.  I also made a number of television appearances, as well as interviews for such publications as The New York Times Magazine, Metropole, Science (the scientific journal), and Newsweek.  If you're trying to argue that the hoax claims have not been sufficiently addressed, I think you'll find the facts are against you.  We do often find here that critics have done very little if any research to determine whether their claims have sound answers.

Quote
...with an actual link yourselves

"Links" are not the sine qua non of knowledge.  I've been a professional aerospace engineer for nearly 30 years and a paid photographer for longer.  I know this stuff by heart because I went and learned it and practiced it professionally.  I didn't just Google around until I felt satisfied.  When I answer you from a position of knowledge and expertise, there is no "link" possible to it.  I did, however, give you a reference to one of the standard works on spacecraft design, whose chapter on thermal design and verification fairly answers most of your questions in your post.  My guess is that you haven't availed yourself of it.  This isn't YouTube.  Apollo took place in the real world, and you'll be expected to come up to real-world standards in documenting and defending your claims.

Quote
...all I see is nope your wrong and BS

Well, you are wrong.  You are nearly completely ignorant on the subject of heat transfer.  You are simply repeating the same layman's errors all the other hoax claimants have, as if you believed no one could possibly be an expert on this and no one could possibly see through your bluff.

Further, while you claimed you had copious documentation and references from official sources, you didn't supply a single one of them.  If someone merely claims he is well supported by evidence but provides none of the evidence, there is little for a critic to do.  Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Quote
about SPECIAL Film from Kodak with a melting point of 250C with no links to this of course as Kodak sent our photographic club the stats for the film at the time and it was nothing close.

If I do a search for "kodak estar melting point," this official data sheet is the first returned item.  It lists the melting point as 255 C.
https://www.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploadedFiles/Corporate/Industrial_Materials_Group/ti2598.pdf

Quote
Unfortunately no Internet back then so was an actual piece of paper on the Kodak letter head, I would say our group leader or Secretary may still have the documents...

Excuses, excuses.

Quote
We also had a letter from Hasselblad in regards to the photographic equipment and can't use that as proof as I don't have a copy.

Excuses, excuses.

« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 12:52:41 PM by JayUtah »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2485
    • Clavius
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #54 on: September 09, 2017, 12:25:52 PM »
Any scientists here...

Yes, and I addressed the scientific errors in your claim without any response from you.  You seem to be more interested in rambling descriptions of your recreational activities and complaints about your critics.

Quote
Photography in space with out an enclosure with part atmosphere and heating plate only done by NASA...

Are you quite sure about that?

Quote
Also as I said with my previous response that I can't use the letter Kodak sent us nor Hasselblad as they may be out there some where...

Your critics are not obliged to address evidence you cannot provide, especially when it contradicts other evidence that does exist.

Quote
Lets try for some scientific responses please...

I referred you to the standard work in the field for spacecraft design, which corrects a number of your mistaken impressions.  Have you read it, or any portion of it?  I see a fair amount of bluster from you, but no attempt whatever to engage the scientific explanations you were given.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline gwiz

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #55 on: September 09, 2017, 12:45:51 PM »
All Military and NASA photography before the Apollo missions during and after all had enclosures with part Atmosphere and heating plate, any one with any photographic experience with the Air force or any other department would know this.
Suggest you research the Corona reconnaissance satellite, first launched in 1959, first successful mission August 1960.  This had a film camera working in vacuum.
Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind - Terry Pratchett
...the ascent module ... took off like a rocket - Moon Man

Offline JayUtah

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2485
    • Clavius
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #56 on: September 09, 2017, 01:05:11 PM »
Frankly, I would settle for him posting in a comprehensible manner because most of the time, I can't understand what he has written.

I have to agree.  There are the side issues of writing skill as a proxy for level of education, etc., but it's simply essential in these debates to be able to express one's claims clearly and as dispassionately as the heat of the argument allows.  Without clarity, critics can end up responding by mistake to points that aren't actually being made, leading the proponent to be able credibly to claim straw-man tactics.  If any rejoinder is going to be made on the basis of "I never said that," then the claims need to be clear enough that mistaken interpretation isn't the best explanation.

Quote
Once he's done that he can leave out all the irrelevant stuff. No one here is interested in his day jet-skiing, waterskiing or his adventures on a sea biscuit.

Agreed.  It's quite disingenuous for him to claim all the responses to him have been irrelevant when he insists on burying any substantial points he's trying to make in long rambling diary entries.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2485
    • Clavius
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #57 on: September 09, 2017, 01:12:35 PM »
This had a film camera working in vacuum.

Which is why the Estar base was made.  Kodak was tasked with creating a film that would work in a vacuum precisely because that was the requirement.  Originally it was thought that film used for high-altitude aerial photography would be sufficient, but it proved not to be.  Initially there was a problem with electrostatic discharge, which is a problem only in a vacuum.  The methods of grounding the gate etc. for Corona were reused in the Apollo Hasselblad.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Jupiter
  • *****
  • Posts: 690
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #58 on: September 09, 2017, 03:41:21 PM »


61? More like eleven. What's up with the silly linebreaks?
There's no way he's 61 and posts in such an immature fashion....

Have you seen the way President (hurp) Trump tweets? He's in his 70s. ;)

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline smartcooky

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #59 on: September 09, 2017, 04:32:32 PM »


61? More like eleven. What's up with the silly linebreaks?
There's no way he's 61 and posts in such an immature fashion....

Have you seen the way President (hurp) Trump tweets? He's in his 70s. ;)

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk


Yup. Fair point. I take it back!
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
►"Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition