Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
A very big thank you for the fabulous information provided by the REAL experts in this thread. I also commend you for dealing with 'he-whose-name-will-not-be-used' over the long dreary months of his childish behaviour and insulting stupidity


Brilliant!
 
Torombolo said:
Big thanks to all sensible writers on this thread. I have gotten a lot of good information on Apollo missions and hardware from here. I volunteered myself to do a presentation on moon landing hoax theories this summer and this thread, along with JREF forums in general have been a big source for information.
Click to expand...


That's great!

I also learned a ton from this thread, so in a way I should have thanked Patrick for not giving up on pushing his nonsense. :D

But most of all, of course, thanks to all the knowledgeable posters who brought actual knowledge and sanity to the thread.

Welcome to the forum, Torombolo.
 
Last edited:
Hans said:
A very big thank you for the fabulous information provided by the REAL experts in this thread. I also commend you for dealing with 'he-whose-name-will-not-be-used' over the long dreary months of his childish behaviour and insulting stupidity

Brilliant!
Click to expand...

Thanks. People often ask me why I do this -- why I endure the trolls and exercise patience. It's because people really do appreciate seeing good information in debate format. It's somehow more exciting to them than reading dry technical expositions.
 
Hans said:
A very big thank you for the fabulous information provided by the REAL experts in this thread. I also commend you for dealing with 'he-whose-name-will-not-be-used' over the long dreary months of his childish behaviour and insulting stupidity


Brilliant!
Click to expand...

Seconded.

I learn so much in these threads.
 
Ditto. This thread brought back a lot of memories, and caused me to learn about what I thought I knew already.

Thanks, in particular, to both Jay and sts60 for putting up with a non-engineer's sometimes (usually) naive questions.
 
JayUtah said:
Thanks. People often ask me why I do this -- why I endure the trolls and exercise patience. It's because people really do appreciate seeing good information in debate format. It's somehow more exciting to them than reading dry technical expositions.
Click to expand...

No, Jay, I think it is more. It is not easy to resist the urge to dogpile on a twit.

Well done.

Nuff said.
 
Following Patrick1000's departure, this thread has been set back to un-moderated. This should not be taken as license to breach the Membership Agreement, which is still very much in effect.
Posted By: Loss Leader



On a personal note and not as a moderator, I ask you all to be kind. Patrick1000 is a real person and deserves compassion for no other reason than that. Simply because he insulted non-members doesn't mean that we should follow his example.
 
Loss Leader said:
Following Patrick1000's departure, this thread has been set back to un-moderated. This should not be taken as license to breach the Membership Agreement, which is still very much in effect.
Posted By: Loss Leader



On a personal note and not as a moderator, I ask you all to be kind. Patrick1000 is a real person and deserves compassion for no other reason than that. Simply because he insulted non-members doesn't mean that we should follow his example.
Click to expand...
Indeed. That is why I did not put the heat on.
 
abaddon said:
No, Jay, I think it is more. It is not easy to resist the urge to dogpile on a twit.

Well done.

Nuff said.
Click to expand...

+1 If only Patrick had taken the education onboard;)

Jay/sts60/KA9Q and others, there's a very good reason why people who know what they are talking about know Apollo was not hoaxed. It is everything to do with knowledge of what was involved, as opposed to the opposite exhibited by hoax believers.

I had no axe to grind with P1k, I was, and am still baflled at his behaviour and constant refusal to address the informed responses to his posts:confused:
 
I also want to say thanks for all the wonderful informative replies that made this thread worthwhile. I learned loads of cool stuff here.
 
I also want to thank you all for the science lesson and the immense patience shown by someone who was grasping at straws in the end.

My understanding of the space program has grown along with my appreciation for their sacrifice.
 
Jay, ka9q, matt.tansy, and some other folks did a lot of heavy lifting in this thread. The discussion of inertial navigation systems alone was worth the price of admission - wading through pages of drivel and lies by the OP. Pretty much everything from poor Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. was just saying anything he could to get attention, until he matched his empty threats against scientists and engineers who were unaware of his existence with empty threats against the forum itself. I feel kind of sorry for him; I don't know what kind of psychological issue causes that behavior, but I hope he gets some help for it.
 
Loss Leader said:
Following Patrick1000's departure, this thread has been set back to un-moderated. This should not be taken as license to breach the Membership Agreement, which is still very much in effect.
Posted By: Loss Leader



On a personal note and not as a moderator, I ask you all to be kind. Patrick1000 is a real person and deserves compassion for no other reason than that. Simply because he insulted non-members doesn't mean that we should follow his example.
Click to expand...
Based on past form, I would expect a new user espousing views suspiciously similar to p1000 to turn up sooner rather than later.
 
mercatormac said:
Based on past form, I would expect a new user espousing views suspiciously similar to p1000 to turn up sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

Let's hope they bring along some originality. Maybe manage to link thermite and beetroots to the conspiracy?
 
Papermache said:
He's really most sincerely dead. Banned at 1:34 pm. Threatening legal actions against JREF? Never a good idea.
Click to expand...
Well I'm not really surprised he found a way to get the boot.

Thanks to Jay, STS, ka9q, and anyone I'm forgetting for yet another educational forum thread. :)
 
SpitfireIX said:
My bad. I was thinking of Jay's sig on another board. It's www . clavius . org.
Click to expand...

I've been reading Moon Base Clavius on and off for some years now. Found it through good Dr. Phil's site.

Now that the main show is done I feel I'm safe in asking a little question. I remember reading a claim in the lines of "Jet engines don't work in space." as evidence of hoax. Now I can't find it anywhere. I'm almost sure it was in Stundies late last year but for the life of me, I can't find it anymore.

That's one of the internet era claims I'll add to my presentation, just for kicks. Main points will be the "Nine space oddities" list from David Milne article. I think these originate from Ralph Rene and should be considered classics, in this context.
 
Just wanted to add another THANK YOU! to all the amazing posters who've taught me so much over the last few months of reading this thread.
 
BaaBaa said:
Cue sound....aaaaaaand roll credits!
Click to expand...


As Jay rides off into the sunset: "I don't know who he is, but he sure cleaned up this town." :D


+1 thank you to everyone else who contributed, also. Things had been pretty dead on the moon-conspiracy front for a while (at least around here, and I hardly ever go to BAUT or Apollohoax anymore). I learned/relearned a lot, both from reading your posts, and while doing research to debunk Patrick's claims.
 
Now that this thread isn't moderated, this post may not get deleted this time. Let's see.

To Jay Windley-

If you're not going to address this issue...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

...I'll ask you about another issue.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094

In the above thread you answered my questions thus...
There's nothing impossible about sifting some sand and washing and scrubbing it until it's dust free and then placing it where the rover is going to drive.
-----------------------------------------
It has been clearly explained to you many times why it's impossible to handle particulates without generating dust. You simply say that it somehow didn't happen in this case, but do not say why.
Click to expand...


Spinning wheels over dust-free sand would not cause enough sand to erode into dust to make a cloud.
----------------------------------------
The majority of the dust is created as it is removed from the washing apparatus, conveyed to the photography site, and laid down -- not right as the rover wheels pass over it. The rover wheels would aerosolize the dust that was created in those prior steps.
Click to expand...


This whole idea of not being able to make sand dust-free is totally silly.
----------------------------------------------------------
Not to the people who have actually tried to do it. And that would not be you.
Click to expand...


Look at what people on these geology forums said about the issue.
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand
Moving and sifting sand is unlikely to produce any finer grains (unless you really go at it and whack it with hammers or something!).
Click to expand...
transportation and dumping the sand will not be enough to cause dust creation unless you had a very dirty an dusty transport container.
Click to expand...
driving a vehicle thru it will not creat dust either (unless you repeat the process insanely often to grind down the sand grains)
Click to expand...


http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-geology&tid=628
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a strange question I hope someone here may be able to help with.
Scenario: imagine washing and sifting several tons of sand. This is to be used on a soundstage to create a desert scene. The sand has been washed and sifted so that if it gets kicked up, it won't form dust clouds. The sand particles are of a size that they will still hold a boot print or a tyre mark.
Question: will the act of transporting the sand, and dumping it in situ, cause sufficient erosion of the sand so that it might still produce some dust when kicked around on the sound stage? Would driving a vehicle on the sand be expected to produce clouds of dust that are visible in the atmosphere, rather than falling straight back down to earth?
In your answer could you also let me know your level of Geology expertise, and whether you consider this a basic question that a layman such as myself should automatically know the answer to?
Once I have some answers I shall let you know the reason for my request, but I don't want to prejudice your answers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sand like that will be clean and dust-free in the scenario you pose. But I don't think it's something the guy-in-the-street would know offhand.
Click to expand...


I've also spoken to several people with backgrounds in geology and they all said you were wrong Jay. Could you comment on this issue please?
 
By the way, the lunar module electrical power system had a 115 VAC bus and a 28 VDC bus. This is a common division in airframe design. Big-ticket items such as hydraulic pumps live on the high-voltage bus, while most everything else lives on the low-voltage DC bus.

The two cabin/suit fans in the LM were on the 28 VDC circuit. Nominally they drew about 4 watts each. In a DC motor (which does not have AC motor power factors) this draws 0.14 amp. Over the 80-odd hours of LM operation, that amounts to just over 11 amp-hours. The overall battery capacity of the Apollo lunar module is 1,600 amp-hours, so operating the fan continuously required only about 0.7% of the spacecraft's available electrical power.

Curiously the fans operated at 25,000 rpm, which is very fast. They were, in fact, very tiny fans operating at high speed. The noise from these fans was a common crew complaint when trying to sleep aboard the LM.

For a real-world comparison, a typical computer case fan will draw 1-2 watts at 12 volts DC, spin at around 700 rpm and move up to 100 cfm of air at sea level. The difference is that the LM suit fans also had to maintain a higher differential pressure, not just a suitable (pun intended) air flow.
 
Jay you have done a superb job here, I think I saw you on a Tv programme Hoax Busters or something like that
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
If you're not going to address this issue...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
Click to expand...

Everybody saw the link to the political forum where this post was absolutely annihilated - also found here on a blog.

I particularly liked this little section from that post...

blog said:
"I will leave you with just the two comments from my videos made by the user cosmored, who is in fact the same person that created this thread:-

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"

Then in reply to my video showing the puffed up back and shoulders of his jacket:-

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

To anybody with rationale, logical thought, with even mild powers of discernement, I would say that fairly conclusively closes the door on that little piece of the "mountain of evidence"."
Click to expand...

Do you care to comment on the conclusions or the selected comments you made?

...I'll ask you about another issue.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094
Click to expand...

Why, what exactly are you trying to prove? That it's possible to create a small dust free set? I would say probably yes. The problem would be worsened by creating a bigger one, because with the best will in the world, you will always get dust, albeit small if you took a lot of time with washing it.

But then the surface would not be able to take any prints, and there would not be signs (as in many many examples of Apollo footage) of surface dust being kicked by the astronauts boots. I have seen where Jarrah White says this doesn't occur at the same time, but he is very wrong.

It makes it a monumental "continuity" problem to have a duplicate set for photographs that corresponds exactly to one for video, and just for Apollo 17 that is 21 hours worth of EVA and hundreds of photographs.

Anyway the "could have done something" assertion, does not equate to "it is proven that they actually did do it". Proof. Do you have any?
 
Last edited:
Everybody saw the link to the political forum where this post was absolutely annihilated - also found here on a blog.
Click to expand...
He had the attitude that he was winning but he was in fact losing. People can read it and decide for themselves.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...missions-were-faked-studio-2.html#post4076273

Here's the anomaly. Let's hear you people analyze it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

But then the surface would not be able to take any prints, and there would not be signs (as in many many examples of Apollo footage) of surface dust being kicked by the astronauts boots. I have seen where Jarrah White says this doesn't occur at the same time, but he is very wrong.
Click to expand...
Here's Jarrah's video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc

I've never seen any of the prints that show fine outlines actually being made. Can you link to any footage of that?

Why, what exactly are you trying to prove? That it's possible to create a small dust free set? I would say probably yes.
Click to expand...
Jay Windley said it was impossible and the geologists said it was possible and now you say it's possible. Is Jay Windley right, or wrong?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Now that this thread isn't moderated, this post may not get deleted this time. Let's see.
Click to expand...

DavidC, stop pretending that your posts are somehow being censored for truth. If your posts were not approved in this thread, it's because they violated the TOS - something you are known for, and which got you banned elsewhere. (I had posts deleted in this thread for TOS too, but I'm not whining about it.) No one's trying to cover up your Big Truth, because (a) you are wrong and (b) you're simply irrelevant outside of anonymous debates on web forums.
FatFreddy88 said:
To Jay Windley-
Click to expand...
This is an open forum; it's not your personal debate site. So I'll answer.
FatFreddy88 said:
Look at what people on these geolog...rum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand
Click to expand...

DavidC, that was a very interesting job of selective editing you did there. See, I actually read that thread, and the responses flatly refute your Magic Sand claims:
1. The type of sand you need for there to be no dust clouds won't hold bootprints, which lunar soil does beautifully.
2. Several of the respondents remarked that it would be very difficult to get rid of all the smaller dust particles.

I see what you did there. That was very dishonest of you.
FatFreddy88 said:
...http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum....eology&tid=628
Click to expand...

It was also wrong, and in my opinion deliberately done, for you to quote HeadLikeARock's original question without attribution - as if it were your own. And the lone reply in that thread did not address any of the other issues with your claim.
FatFreddy88 said:
....I've also spoken to several people with backgrounds in geology and they all said you were wrong Jay. Could you comment on this issue please?
Click to expand...

Really? With whom, exactly, did you talk? You only made one off-topic post in the first geology thread, and the only response anybody bothered to make was that you put words in his mouth.

See, that's the problem with your posting these selectively-quoted bits, David. Some of us actually read them. Like the guy whose authority you unhesitatingly swallowed, who said there were no images of stars or planets taken from space.

Now that I've answered your question, I ask you - again - to either provide evidence for your claim that I don't believe what I'm saying, or to retract it. This is an explicit request, and I will keep reminding you of it until you do one or the other. Please note that you may not evade the question by pointing to some idiot YouTube video as a belief test; I require explicit evidence, or a retraction and apology. Also, please note that I do you the courtesy of granting that you actually believe your ignorant, paranoid drivel, no matter the chicanery to which you resort in presenting it.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Here's the anomaly. Let's hear you people analyze it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
Click to expand...

The jackets and straps moving in zero-g argument again. It is only an "anomaly" because you say so? Ever think that perhaps items do not move around the same because they are pulled around differently or are made of varying material? That is a mundane explanation compared to "Apollo was hoaxed". Have any evidence other than "I said so"?

Ranb
 
DavidC, that was a very interesting job of selective editing you did there. See, I actually read that thread, and the responses flatly refute your Magic Sand claims:
Click to expand...
You're misrepresenting what the thread says to sway those viewers who don't actually click on the link and read it. Here it is.
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

That's a pretty low tactic. I urge all viewers and lurkers to withhold judgement until you've actually read the whole thread.
 
I read the link and feel that FF was selective. :) Tell us how course sand that does not create dust holds a boot print and does not clump when tossed up by the rover wheels?

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom