Author Topic: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation  (Read 9333 times)

Offline bknight

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2446
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #330 on: July 11, 2018, 11:14:31 AM »
In addition cambo's wall-o-text without specific references is hard to follow.

Along with misattributed quotes.  I thought about replying, but I lack the energy to pick apart the wall of text and find where he might have addressed something I said.  And given that all the stuff I've challenged him on already is on my web site (which he either hasn't read or doesn't care to acknowledge), I'm not impressed with his research skills.

I haven't been to the web page in some time.  Is everything working again?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline jfb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #331 on: July 11, 2018, 11:58:51 AM »
In addition cambo's wall-o-text without specific references is hard to follow.

Which is pretty much the point.  Gish galloping works by exhausting the opponent to the point that they give up, such that you win by default. 

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1210
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #332 on: July 11, 2018, 01:18:35 PM »
Hey Cambo,

I've asked you to post your single, strongest piece of "evidence". How are you getting on with that?
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #333 on: July 11, 2018, 03:51:03 PM »
In addition cambo's wall-o-text without specific references is hard to follow.

Which is pretty much the point.  Gish galloping works by exhausting the opponent to the point that they give up, such that you win by default.
… for certain values of "win"  :D

I don't see any point in trying to discuss these claims with Cambo any more.  He's not willing to have a rational debate, and seems to be going out of his way to be as annoying as possible.

I've asked you to post your single, strongest piece of "evidence". How are you getting on with that?
That would be progress and might lead to some results, or at least a single thread of debate, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an answer...
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Online raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1362
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #334 on: July 11, 2018, 04:51:32 PM »
Speaking of bravery, how about the Voskhod 1 cosmonauts? They had no ejection seats, no dedicated launch escape system, meaning they'd need to wait until after the payload shroud was jettisoned to escape, three minutes into the flight,and anyone who has seen rocket launch failures knows they tend to happen far sooner than that. Heck, they didn't have pressure suits!

Offline jfb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #335 on: July 11, 2018, 06:42:45 PM »
Oh good Lord, how could I have forgotten about this?!

Hey, cambo, the Soviets were in on it too!

Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.

Offline Abaddon

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 989
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #336 on: July 12, 2018, 01:10:43 PM »
Cambo last posted 5 days ago and has been lurking since. Presumably to gauge reaction to his posts.

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #337 on: July 12, 2018, 02:36:42 PM »
That's his usual M.O. Instead of composing individual answers to individual posters, he takes all the replies to his posts and jams them together into one wall o' text Gish Gallop. That's a lot more work, and he does it on purpose to wear us out.
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline nickrulercreator

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 33
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #338 on: July 12, 2018, 05:57:20 PM »
That's a lot more work, and he does it on purpose to wear us out.

It seems like we’re doing the same to him. Though all of his posts have been nothing but nonsense, it seems like he is losing composure with each following post and somehow making each post make less sense than the previous ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

Offline Obviousman

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #339 on: July 12, 2018, 07:03:48 PM »
That's why I like to ask them for their strongest evidence, and just stay with that. And I also prefer to let one person lead the discussion; having six or seven people asking you things and trying to answer them all coherently can be daunting at times.

Offline molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #340 on: July 13, 2018, 02:28:23 AM »
That's why I like to ask them for their strongest evidence, and just stay with that. And I also prefer to let one person lead the discussion; having six or seven people asking you things and trying to answer them all coherently can be daunting at times.
Very true, and having tried to keep multiple lines of discussion going on other forums myself, I have some sympathy.  However, the way to deal with it, as you say, is to take one topic at a time, and to merge replies where appropriate, with proper quoting so people can follow your line of thought and know when their questions or opinions have been answered.  If you need to have a couple of ideas in flight together, then separate replies on those subjects, and make it clear what you're talking about.

It really isn't that hard, and the tools every forum provides, plus a text editor, are all you need to hold a coherent discussion - even with half a dozen respondents.  Perhaps Cambo is new to the world of internet forums, but reading other discussions, both here and on other forums, should have given him a feel for what's sensible / understandable and what's not.  There are plenty of examples of both.
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1210
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #341 on: July 13, 2018, 03:40:26 AM »

It really isn't that hard, and the tools every forum provides, plus a text editor, are all you need to hold a coherent discussion - even with half a dozen respondents.  Perhaps Cambo is new to the world of internet forums, but reading other discussions, both here and on other forums, should have given him a feel for what's sensible / understandable and what's not.  There are plenty of examples of both.

It always amuses me that the very person that talks about science and engineering being incorrect can't or won't figure out how to correctly use a simple tool such as the quote functionality in an Internet  forum.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 811
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #342 on: July 13, 2018, 12:39:03 PM »
I admit it, I'm bored.

Launching a rocket with a small satellite on-board may have been possible, but to launch a rocket of Apollo’s alleged weight and expect it to reach orbit is a very contentious issue in some people’s eyes.

Not to anyone who can actually do the math. Like, I don't know, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Yes, there is more to getting a spacecraft into orbit, but the basic energy requirements are described by the simple and elegant Ideal Rocket Equation.

Oh, and why "alleged?" If you don't agree on the mass, you have no business trying to calculate the launch. Thing is, there are detailed drawings available, and you can cross-check the dimensions against actual space-flown (and non-flown) hardware that are publicly accessible in museums.

No ejector seats for obvious reasons and no emergency services to rescue them, and the only thing they volunteered for was being part of the fraud.

Check the literature again. You are clearly wrong (definitely for pre-launch and early launch phase, then it gets less clear through the flight as there were multiple contingency plans for various aborts).

A flight simulator is modelled from the working plane it is simulating. In the landers case they would only be able to simulate how they assumed it would work in a real environment. They had the tech to do it remotely, so why put lives at risk when it wasn’t necessary? If they had applied a bit of logic to the story they were telling, then it may have been slightly more plausible, but it wouldn’t have mattered either way to Mr Kubrick, as he was only in it for the money and the fame, he knew he would eventually receive.

Are you saying gravity works differently in space? When Konstantin is done with you, I think Sir Isaac would like a word.

Flight Simulators are pilot trainers. They are not the only pre-flight, even pre-build simulations done for aircraft. Ever hear of wind tunnels? When Newton is done talking, there's a couple of bicycle builders from North Carolina that would like a word about testing scale models before building the real thing.

Your complete lack of logic makes you and your fellow NASA followers a difficult bunch to argue with, as only a child would compare an aircraft to a spacecraft, as they are two completely different concepts. Why would they choose military pilots to man these crafts, when it would be logical to employ the very people who designed the craft, as they would know them inside out and would understand the principles of space flight. Who flew the first plane? Who drove the first car? The reason they chose those men is obvious, as it was to instil a sense of bravery, pride and patriotism into a nation that had very little to be proud of at that time.

Bolding mine.

They did. Read about the history of the program again. The Apollo crews had degrees in the appropriate fields and were closely involved with the construction and testing of the craft.

What, are you going to send all the design heads and team leaders? That would be a big spacecraft. Better to send generalists who had been everywhere, talked to everyone, and had the best grasp of pretty much anybody of the whole picture.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1650
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #343 on: July 13, 2018, 12:42:28 PM »
And for heaven's sake, why does the profession of test pilot exist if "send the designer" were always the most sensible option?
"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 nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 811
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #344 on: July 13, 2018, 12:44:36 PM »

I was merely responding to your assumption that the lander would have blown the dust clear over the horizon, in which case I would assume it was powerful enough to blast away the lunar soil underneath it, leaving nothing but bare rock. On the other hand, if the soil was feet deep rather than inches, then we would see a massive crater.


Why assume? Oh, right. Because you avoided that horrible brainwashing and thus can't do science or math.

Also total fail on lunar geology. This isn't Earth. On Earth, there is air. There is wind. There is a rain cycle. There is liquid water. These are what move and deposit soils. On the Moon, the finely powdered top layer is created in situ. It doesn't lie in thin mobile sheets over impermeable bedrock.