ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags apollo hoax , moon landing hoax

Reply
Old 22nd March 2013, 03:08 PM   #281
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
Originally Posted by LongFuzzy View Post
"About a year ago, billionaire Jeff Bezos went to NASA with plans to recover some of the F-1 engines that helped power Apollo astronauts beyond Earth orbit in the late 1960s and early 1970s."

http://www.edn.com/electrical-engine...om-ocean-floor

-LF
Saw this on the news last night. Historical find, kudos to the people involved.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2013, 05:29 PM   #282
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
what a ride what a ride

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvWHnK2FiCk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_OD...endscreen&NR=1
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2013, 05:25 AM   #283
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,621
Originally Posted by grmcdorman View Post
Unfortunately, it seems to be all too frequent (and not just in space images). The CTers don't understand image compression, image artefacts (either in general or JPEG in particular), or any sort of photogrammetry.
They also don't understand exposure.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2013, 07:37 AM   #284
cjameshuff
Critical Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 250
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
They also don't understand exposure.
Or computer renderings of elevation maps.

That's a color overhead photo, badly overcompressed with JPEG, stretched over a triangle mesh generated from an elevation map, rendered from the side, and then JPEG'd again. All sorts of artifacts for CTs to zoom and color shift into view.
cjameshuff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2013, 07:20 AM   #285
Willy Ekerslike
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
"Three categories of samples were brought back by the Apollo 11 crew: contingency, bulk, and documented (or core) samples. Neil Armstrong collected contingency samples first - about one kilogram of surface material - being careful to get far enough away from the lunar module that the soil would not have been contaminated by the residue from the descent engine exhaust. He sealed this sample in a plastic bag."
Yes, of course this would be the only way to do it. Seems logical to me- oops- I used the 'L' word. Darn.
Willy Ekerslike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2013, 09:12 AM   #286
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,805
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
They also don't understand exposure.
The nonsense about no stars makes that pretty clear. I strongly suspect none of these people have actually done any photography, or at least none beyond the "point and shoot" level.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2013, 10:11 AM   #287
nomuse
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 779
Wait a minute...his idea that the lunar samples would have been contaminated by the LM exhaust leads him to the conclusion that "The rocks must have been tampered with?"

How does this work in conspiracy-land anyhow? The Apollo missions take place, the conspiracy realizes there is some surface contamination on their samples that supports their story, so they use some kind of sooper sekret "radiation oven" to dry them out without changing their chemistry at all and THEN release them to geologists?

So the conspiracy goes through all this effort to create an inconsistency?
nomuse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2013, 11:37 AM   #288
Call Me Crazy But
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 69
As a quick aside, Quest (Freeview 38) are showing the Mythbusters Apollo episode tomorrow - Tuesday at 8.00. Thought I'd mention it as I don't think it's been shown in the UK before. At least not on free-to-air.
Call Me Crazy But is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2013, 02:31 PM   #289
nomuse
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 779
Well, there is a possible defense for the usual hoaxie line of argument.

It follows like this;

(The operation) is quite technical/complex. (This inconsistency) is subtle/unknowable at the time of the hoax, so it is possible the conspiracy made a mistake and omitted/committed it. Fortunately I am a brilliant Google U. polymath and I was able to deduce what none of the professionals working at the time, or since, had managed to anticipate or realize.

You can see the obvious flaw, of course. The reasoning may be sound, but it is based on an erroneous assumption. The inflated opinion of their own skills is pure Dunning-Kruger.
nomuse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2013, 06:12 PM   #290
Bill Thompson
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,171
I overestimated human intelligence. That was my mistake. I thought everyone knew that we went to the moon and that people who pretended to think we did not were just joking.

So I sent a private email, as a joke to the owner of an Apollo Hoax forum. He instantly made the email public because it was exactly what the hoax believers had been praying for.

Now, no matter how many emails I send them to tell them it was a lark, they still do not believe me.

Google "William M Thompson Apollo Hoax"

Here was my idea. All these people claim that apollo landing is a hoax. So why doesn't anyone come forward who was an engineer with Apollo? So wouldn't it be funny if I pretended to be some old guy on his death bed who was involved in the hoax.

The results were amaizing. I suddenly had offers to appear on the radio and television and write a book. I told them all it was a joke. It still does not stop the fact that believers quote me to this day.

You can also just go here and search for "William M. Thompson" http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax
I still think it is funny. Sorry, my twisted sense of humor.

Last edited by Bill Thompson; 25th March 2013 at 06:15 PM.
Bill Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2013, 06:26 PM   #291
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,690
Originally Posted by Bill Thompson View Post
I overestimated human intelligence. That was my mistake. I thought everyone knew that we went to the moon and that people who pretended to think we did not were just joking.

So I sent a private email, as a joke to the owner of an Apollo Hoax forum. He instantly made the email public because it was exactly what the hoax believers had been praying for.

Now, no matter how many emails I send them to tell them it was a lark, they still do not believe me.

Google "William M Thompson Apollo Hoax"

Here was my idea. All these people claim that apollo landing is a hoax. So why doesn't anyone come forward who was an engineer with Apollo? So wouldn't it be funny if I pretended to be some old guy on his death bed who was involved in the hoax.

The results were amaizing. I suddenly had offers to appear on the radio and television and write a book. I told them all it was a joke. It still does not stop the fact that believers quote me to this day.

You can also just go here and search for "William M. Thompson" http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax
I still think it is funny. Sorry, my twisted sense of humor.
According to the link, you died in 2002. I wept.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2013, 01:23 AM   #292
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,571
And just so we can expose our lovely new friend's complete lack of ability to do basic research some more, a tiny amount of googling reveals that the Clementine probe in the late 90s also discovered evidence of water, the Russians discovered water in their lunar samples in 1976, and this paper:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1970GeCAS...1.1103F

discusses the Apollo 11 samples. It has this to say:

Quote:
"We do not think that the lower water content of the vacuum-sealed sample indicates large scale contamination by terrestrial water in the other sampels because there appears to be great variability in water content between two pieces of the same breccia that had been exposed to the terrestrial atmosphere for several months."
Quote:
"Contamination with unexpended rocket fuel dumped on the lunar surface can be ruled out"
and

Quote:
"Additions of rocket exhaust gases cannot be as easily determined as can those of organic fuel, and these gases still remain a possibility as a contaminant...the CO2 results discussed later, however, tend to rule out rocket exhaust contamination."
So, not only was water found in Apollo 11 samples, and reported in the scientific literature, but its sources (including the possibility of rocket exhaust contamination) were considered.

E2A: And we can use studies like this COSPAR to show that contamination by LM exhaust products was anticipated and well studied long before a lunar module got near the moon, and they could therefore be allowed for in any examination of lunar samples.


Next...
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked

Last edited by threadworm; 26th March 2013 at 01:55 AM. Reason: Additional link
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2013, 11:17 AM   #293
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,571
Dammit!

I was mid-post!!

In summary, my point was: 5 miles doesn't matter. 10 miles doesn't matter. 2 people knew exactly where they were, and the signal to and from the LM was good enough to speak to the people they needed to.

The idea that not being able to locate them to within a few feet matters is nonsense. A positional error of 0.23% (5 miles as a % of the moon's diameter) over 240000 miles is pretty good going in my book.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2013, 11:22 AM   #294
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
I have already posted this in the past, but it could be worth repeating: why haven't any new close-up photos been taken of the moon's surface since the early 70s?!

Probably because the moon landscape in reality doesn't look black and white like in the Apollo photos. Haha.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2013, 11:26 AM   #295
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 6,870
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I have already posted this in the past, but it could be worth repeating: why haven't any new close-up photos been taken of the moon's surface since the early 70s?!

Probably because the moon landscape in reality doesn't look black and white like in the Apollo photos. Haha.

LOL wut?

It's too early to be that high.

__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2013, 11:43 AM   #296
LaurelHS
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 700
The Moon landscape isn't black and white in all of the Apollo photos. There was a greenish-coloured boulder at one of the Apollo 15 sites and the Apollo 17 crew found a patch of orange soil.
LaurelHS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2013, 02:22 PM   #297
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I have already posted this in the past, but it could be worth repeating: why haven't any new close-up photos been taken of the moon's surface since the early 70s?!
Nope...wasn't worth repeating...
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2013, 03:24 PM   #298
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,894
Jay

Quote:
But for landing on the Moon, the landing programs have a specific task. They are supposed to manage the state vector, using engine thrust and direction as their inputs, so that the location portion of the state vector coincides with the desired landing point at the same time the lateral velocity component of the state vector is zeroed out and the vertical component is less than a certain value. A lot of calculus goes into determine what path and velocity states best accomplish that. But in the dirty details the system works out to be a series of basic, simple control laws.
In essence this looks very similar my understanding of how the "back end" of an inertial navigation system works, where the X, Y & Z vectors are are provided by the "front end" containing highly accurate accelerometers.

In the case of the Apollo navigation system, the "front end" is a computer that calculates the X, Y and Z vectors using the fact that a given thrust in a given direction will result in a known acceleration? By knowing the starting point, and knowing the exact acceleration, it is possible to accurate calculate, in real time, exactly where the spacecraft is in 3D space relative to that starting point.

Is that a fair assessment?
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2013, 04:16 PM   #299
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Is that a fair assessment?
Not really. Spacecraft guidance uses measured (not assumed) acceleration too.

In accelerated flight, the guidance system integrates measurements from the accelerometers on the IMU. So when the engine is on, the RCS is operating, etc., the guidance system additionally integrates measured acceleration into the state vector. You don't assume some engine will produce nominal acceleration. You simply measure the acceleration that is actually produced.

In unaccelerated flight the state vector is updated by means of a gravitation model of some sort. For Earth orbit, lunar orbit, cislunar cruise, and all the other major modes, there is a gravitational model that updates the state vector based on a parameterized gravity (i.e., orbital) model.

For example, the state vector at engine cutoff for an insertion maneuver uniquely determines the orbit. Position and velocity vector, relative to the primary, determine the orbital elements about that primary. From then on, the state vector can be updated from the generalized orbit model -- at time t along some orbit O, position and velocity are given by equations in the orbital model.

Obviously the initial orbit is only as accurate as the accumulated state vector when the insertion completes, which is why ground calibrations are necessary. If you enter an orbit around the Moon and leave the engine alone, each AOS/LOS pair goes into a numerical model of the orbit and after about 10 revs in the orbit you have a very highly accurate concept of the orbital elements. This can be uploaded to the spacecraft, which can then very accurately update its state vector in unaccelerated flight by solving the orbit at a time resolution most appropriate to the need.

Orbit calibrations are part of practically every space mission. We use various observational techniques on the ground to empirically determine the orbit a spacecraft has entered, then we can plan accelerated flight accordingly.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2013, 05:10 PM   #300
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,894
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Not really. Spacecraft guidance uses measured (not assumed) acceleration too.

In accelerated flight, the guidance system integrates measurements from the accelerometers on the IMU. So when the engine is on, the RCS is operating, etc., the guidance system additionally integrates measured acceleration into the state vector. You don't assume some engine will produce nominal acceleration. You simply measure the acceleration that is actually produced.

In unaccelerated flight the state vector is updated by means of a gravitation model of some sort. For Earth orbit, lunar orbit, cislunar cruise, and all the other major modes, there is a gravitational model that updates the state vector based on a parameterized gravity (i.e., orbital) model.

For example, the state vector at engine cutoff for an insertion maneuver uniquely determines the orbit. Position and velocity vector, relative to the primary, determine the orbital elements about that primary. From then on, the state vector can be updated from the generalized orbit model -- at time t along some orbit O, position and velocity are given by equations in the orbital model.

Obviously the initial orbit is only as accurate as the accumulated state vector when the insertion completes, which is why ground calibrations are necessary. If you enter an orbit around the Moon and leave the engine alone, each AOS/LOS pair goes into a numerical model of the orbit and after about 10 revs in the orbit you have a very highly accurate concept of the orbital elements. This can be uploaded to the spacecraft, which can then very accurately update its state vector in unaccelerated flight by solving the orbit at a time resolution most appropriate to the need.

Orbit calibrations are part of practically every space mission. We use various observational techniques on the ground to empirically determine the orbit a spacecraft has entered, then we can plan accelerated flight accordingly.
So it uses a combination of assumed accelerations and velocities and actual measurements of same?

It sounds like the old "suck it and see" approach; you put the spacecraft into what you think is a particular orbit, then observe it to see how far away from the intended orbit it actually is, then adjust the orbit to make up the difference.

It reminds me of a funny story I once read on an ASW course back in the 1980's


"The missile knows where it is because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (depending on which is the greater) it obtains a difference, or deviation.

The guidance system then uses this deviation to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is, to a position where it isn't. Consequently, the position where it is now is the position where it wasn't, and it follows that the position where it was, is now the position where it isn't.

In the event that the position where it is now is not the position that it previously wasn't, the system will have acquired a variation, being the difference between where the missile is and where it wasn't.

If the variation is considered to be significant, it may be corrected, however, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance sequence can be summarised as follows;

Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure where it is, however, it is sure where it isn't and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain both the deviation and its variation."
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2013, 07:09 PM   #301
cjameshuff
Critical Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 250
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
So it uses a combination of assumed accelerations and velocities and actual measurements of same?
IIRC, it was one of the first major applications of Kalman filters.

It maintains an internal estimate of the system state which it uses as a basis for predicting the future state based on known dynamics of the system. It compares those predictions to actual measurements, correcting the estimate to be consistent with the actual state of the vehicle without relying entirely on either. If the dynamics model remains accurate, the result is a highly robust control system that converges to a good estimate of the system's state, but filters out spurious sensor inputs which are physically unlikely given recent history.

Reliability of different input sources can be taken into account, some sensor inputs having more importance relative to each other and to the internal estimate generated by all the previous sensor inputs. At the extreme, you might occasionally have a source trustworthy enough that you just overwrite the internal estimate with direct measurements.
cjameshuff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2013, 04:51 AM   #302
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
So it uses a combination of assumed accelerations and velocities and actual measurements of same?

It sounds like the old "suck it and see" approach; you put the spacecraft into what you think is a particular orbit, then observe it to see how far away from the intended orbit it actually is, then adjust the orbit to make up the difference.

It reminds me of a funny story I once read on an ASW course back in the 1980's


"The missile knows where it is because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (depending on which is the greater) it obtains a difference, or deviation.

The guidance system then uses this deviation to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is, to a position where it isn't. Consequently, the position where it is now is the position where it wasn't, and it follows that the position where it was, is now the position where it isn't.

In the event that the position where it is now is not the position that it previously wasn't, the system will have acquired a variation, being the difference between where the missile is and where it wasn't.

If the variation is considered to be significant, it may be corrected, however, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance sequence can be summarised as follows;

Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure where it is, however, it is sure where it isn't and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain both the deviation and its variation."
This is the essence behind closed-loop control systems: Don't trust the inputs blindly, measure whatever measurable outputs you can and compare them to what you expected given the inputs. The error tells you how far your internal state was off, and then you can update that and compare to the expected state to adjust the inputs. There are control algorithms that deal with exactly how much adjustment to make and when, depending on the system being controlled. The next time you set the cruise control on your car, you can observe this; it uses a closed-loop control algorithm based on the accelerator and the speedometer. Far, far simpler system than the Apollo guidance system, obviously, but the basic underlying principle is the same.
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2013, 06:44 AM   #303
Willy Ekerslike
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 70
Yesterday evening I was introduced to two people, one early 40s, one mid 60s who, for one reason or another got to talking about Apollo. I joined in and they looked at me incredulously, the younger one saying "You're the first person I've ever met who believes Apollo actually went to the moon!" The older then said "What about the shadows? The Flag? The stars?" To which I replied "Well, some people believe anything, don't they?" They seemed happy with that 'apology', not realizing what I meant! I gently related a couple of points about Jodrell Bank (which is nearby) and, to their demand "if it happened, why did they never go back?" reminded them about 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Nonplussed. So now, I feel kind of sad and a bit depressed.

Last edited by Willy Ekerslike; 11th April 2013 at 06:47 AM.
Willy Ekerslike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2013, 01:02 PM   #304
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,120
My good friend found out his boss thinks Apollo was a hoax.

Keep in mind this guy is an engineer (so is my friend).

One thing about my friend's job is that he doesn't really need to watch his mouth much. After hearing this about his boss he went from belligerent to outright insulting towards his boss.

The joy is: despite the fact that he is the boss he really can't do much to my friend.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2013, 01:19 PM   #305
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,690
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
My good friend found out his boss thinks Apollo was a hoax.

Keep in mind this guy is an engineer (so is my friend).

One thing about my friend's job is that he doesn't really need to watch his mouth much. After hearing this about his boss he went from belligerent to outright insulting towards his boss.

The joy is: despite the fact that he is the boss he really can't do much to my friend.
Yep, it's always quite a mental gearshift to find out that anyone you heretofore thought as rational is in fact a HB.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2013, 05:21 PM   #306
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Willy Ekerslike View Post
Yesterday evening I was introduced to two people, one early 40s, one mid 60s who, for one reason or another got to talking about Apollo. I joined in and they looked at me incredulously, the younger one saying "You're the first person I've ever met who believes Apollo actually went to the moon!" The older then said "What about the shadows? The Flag? The stars?" To which I replied "Well, some people believe anything, don't they?" They seemed happy with that 'apology', not realizing what I meant! I gently related a couple of points about Jodrell Bank (which is nearby) and, to their demand "if it happened, why did they never go back?" reminded them about 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Nonplussed. So now, I feel kind of sad and a bit depressed.
It makes me a bit sad and depressed too. It seems that engineers fall for the Apollo Hoax woo-woo more often than scientists, though more engineers worked on the Saturn V rockets.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 03:24 AM   #307
Neutiquam Erro
mennil-toss flykune
 
Neutiquam Erro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
What about the argument that Neil took pictures before the contingency? That one worked for me. Don't you think it is suspicious because they would have drilled that so many times. Isn't that correct?
I'd say that one exceedingly trivial anomaly (if it is even that) in the behavior of one single individual is pretty weak sauce, if one intends to use it to discredit the entire massive Apollo program.
__________________
I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, help me, Superman!
- H. Simpson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the not-worth-knowing.
- H. L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm gonna find me a woman who won't fall apart on the witness stand.
- Tommy Womack, "Up Memphis Blues"
Neutiquam Erro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 04:48 AM   #308
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
I wonder why you never hear about the astronauts socks. I think they were just puppets. Puppets don't have socks.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 07:41 AM   #309
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I wonder why you never hear about the astronauts socks. I think they were just puppets. Puppets don't have socks.
Clearly if one of the astronauts once wore mismatched socks then it's all fake.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 07:46 AM   #310
Neutiquam Erro
mennil-toss flykune
 
Neutiquam Erro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Clearly if one of the astronauts once wore mismatched socks then it's all fake.
In all seriousness [gulp], haven't we already heard that about the silver-painted boots in some of the Mercury and/or Gemini publicity photos?
Neutiquam Erro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 08:56 AM   #311
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
Another idea for you. Integrate the accelerations twice. X one give the velocity, X 2 gives the position. The computer did just that, integrated the accelerations X 2 to give the position.
Not exactly. The accelerometers were integrating accelerometers so while it's true that you double-integrate accelerometers, the Apollo computer simply accumulated the delta-v reported by the accelerometer via the counter interrupt mechanism. Classic state-vector formulation uses velocity rather than acceleration because you sometimes have to obtain the state vector via methods that provide only velocity (e.g., orbital models).
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 09:00 AM   #312
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
Navigation is about "where you are", guidance is about "where you are going". You are sort of addressing guidance.
Well I do both for a living, so pick your topic.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 09:03 AM   #313
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,276
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
What about the argument that Neil took pictures before the contingency? That one worked for me.
Really? One trivial departure from the flight plan throws your whole knowledge and understanding off kilter? This will probably be a fun conversation.

Quote:
Don't you think it is suspicious because they would have drilled that so many times. Isn't that correct?
No, I don't think it's suspicious since Armstrong explained in his debriefing why he did what he did, and it was for what he decided was a good reason. He was not a trained monkey. "He went off script," is not a sufficient reason to accept your judgment. Go find Armstrong's explanation for why he went off script and tell us why we should consider his rationale poor judgment.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 09:07 AM   #314
trebor
Thinker
 
trebor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 152
Originally Posted by HonoluluFilly View Post
What about the argument that Neil took pictures before the contingency? That one worked for me. Don't you think it is suspicious because they would have drilled that so many times. Isn't that correct?
Why would it be suspicious?
trebor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 09:57 AM   #315
Erock
Muse
 
Erock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 751
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I wonder why you never hear about the astronauts socks. I think they were just puppets. Puppets don't have socks.
I think you will find they didn't drill putting their socks on into the training regime. One black sock and one blue sock is no more suspicious than for example a newbie arriving, bumping two Apollo threads and talking about the guidance system. It's not as though they mentioned poop is it
__________________
The less they know the more they blow.
Erock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 11:01 AM   #316
LaurelHS
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 700
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, I don't think it's suspicious since Armstrong explained in his debriefing why he did what he did, and it was for what he decided was a good reason.
He went "off-script" at least one other time when he walked over to Little West Crater for photographs. He thought geologists would be interested and it was a very short trip.
LaurelHS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 11:41 AM   #317
Peter May
Graduate Poster
 
Peter May's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
You're not in a position to prove anything. What you are doing there is telling people what their argument is and telling that they're wrong, without having any kind of basis for either side of it.

Your so called issue is a fictitious one entirely of your own making. Run along now.
'


This is very true.
The truth has no political affiliations or aspirations, it cannot be bent by belief, it has no masters, nor is it open to debate. It remains simply the truth.

It is very important to understand the nature of what we see, and not what we want to see.
Peter May is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 11:46 AM   #318
Peter May
Graduate Poster
 
Peter May's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88 View Post
You talk as if your word were proof. It's not proof as you might be lying.

I maintain that this is such a basic, self-evident issue that nobody has to ask an expert to confirm it. If anyone wants to, I guarantee the objective expert will find the pro-Apollo camp's position laughable.

Here's an example of billowing dust in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6FH7x0wB_I
(4:30 time mark)

Your position is that, if some dust-free sand is transported and placed, the erosion caused by transporting and placing it will be enough to create enough dust to cause dust clouds when it's driven over. The fact that this is wrong is very self-evident. The sand would have to be beaten with sledge hammers for hours and hours to create that much dust. Any twelve-year-old could explain this.

You people aren't fooling anybody. This issue is simply too basic.

Wrong


The truth has no political affiliations or aspirations, it cannot be bent by belief, it has no masters, nor is it open to debate. It remains simply the truth.
You seek to find a master for the truth where there is none.
Peter May is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 11:47 AM   #319
LaurelHS
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 700
Why are you responding to posts from January?
LaurelHS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2013, 11:49 AM   #320
Erock
Muse
 
Erock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 751
Originally Posted by LaurelHS View Post
Why are you responding to posts from January?
Hell, why is he responding to FF88 AND from January
__________________
The less they know the more they blow.
Erock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.