| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 7:50 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
. My statement stands without further clarification. I know more about the Apollo hoax than any other person on this planet.
I should, Ive put enough effort into it. You, on the other and, have resisted learning anything except the lies you were spoonfed. Quoting: IDW 312662
Have you now re-defined "clarification" as well?
`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'
DOES or DOES NOT your understanding extend to the official story from NASA on how THEY claimed to have accomplished the missions? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 8:29 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
In the 1960's, we spent roughly 5% of the gross domestic product over a decade to get to the moon... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
This is a bald-faced lie. The total cost of the entire Apollo program, 1961-1975, was about $135 billion in today's dollars:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
That's equivalent to about 1.5 years of Iraq war:
[link to zfacts.com]
The American gross domestic product just for 2006 is $13 trillion:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Or put another way, the total cost of the Apollo program was $25 billion in 1969 dollars. The gross national product in that same year was almost exactly $1 trillion:
[link to research.stlouisfed.org]
So the entire Apollo program cost about 2.5% of a single year's GNP.
I'm sorry, you get an F in arithmetic. Put a dunce cap on your head and stand in the corner. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 8:38 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Our ultimate competitors, the Russians, would have been more than happy to expose our success...not just once, but SIX times, as a fake. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
Nonsense. Neither the Russians nor any other country (not even the Vatican!) are willing to expose one government's lies, for fear of escalating to a worldwide "war of truth" that would damage every regime everywhere (including the Vatican!).
We already know this from 9/11. Every major government in the world, including the Vatican, knows very well that the entire United States Air Force was not brought to its knees by a cave-dwelling Afghan nomad and his little band of followers wielding boxcutters. Yet only a handful of governments, including Iran and Cuba, are honest enough to speak the truth of the matter. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/15/2007 8:38 PM
 | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Here are other pictures of the landers on the surface (or their shadows, which are longer than the landers themselves) taken from lunar orbit.
[ link to www.tass-survey.org]
That makes for interesting reading when NASA pics somehow point out in great detail where the remains of the Landers are.
However how is it NASA also says they have no idea where the remains of "corner reflectors" of Apollo 11, 14 and 15 missions left behind close to the Lander remains are? They say they are all in a general area of around 2km radius.
[link to calgary.rasc.ca]
NASA I'm afraid to say is still very much run by a group of Mickey Mouse Disneyland loving teachers. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 8:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
They are like nothing else on Earth and they couldnt have been constructed artificially because they bear the evidence of billions of years exposure to a vacuum, high energy cosmic rays, tiny asteroids and NO water. Nothing on Earth could replicated this, either naturally or man-made. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
This is another bald-faced lie.
Read about tektites:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
The more common scientific view is that they are earth-made. However, NASA's view is that they must come from the moon, because they are too lunarlike!
---
NASA scientist John A. O'Keefe published numerous papers between the 1950s and 1990s discussing these lunar rare-earth, isotopic and other chemistries, and how they relate to tektite glass.[citation needed]
Thus, some tektite researchers continue to strongly disagree with the popular terrestrial-impact theory; they suggest that tektites are more likely volcanic ejecta from the Moon.
From the 1950s through the 1990s, NASA aerodynamicist Dean R. Chapman and others advanced the "lunar origin" theory of tektites. Chapman used complex orbital computer models and extensive wind tunnel tests to support the theory that the so-called Australasian tektites originated from the Rosse ejecta ray of the large crater Tycho on the Moon's nearside. Until the Rosse ray is sampled, a lunar origin for these tektites cannot be ruled out. During the 1980s and 1990s, researchers such as O’Keefe of NASA, astronomer and long-time tektite researcher Hal Povenmire, and petrologist Darryl Futrell claimed that the slow way in which tektite glass formed (called "fining"), and the volcanic features they claimed to have observed within some layered tektites, couldn’t be explained by the terrestrial-impact theory. Unlike all terrestrial impactite glasses, tektites are nearly free of internal water similar to lunar rocks. Also, Stokes Law does not permit the formation of tektites during impact while the velocity needed to form certain "flanged" tektites is more compatible with a lunar origin rather than a terrestrial origin. O'Keefe suggested explosive, hydrogen-driven lunar volcanoes as the original source of tektites. Note: Since the unmanned U.S. Clementine lunar mission of the 1990s, vast areas of pyroclastic (volcanic) glasses have been identified, notably in the area of the Aristarchus plateau. There is also evidence of interstitial granitic material (akin to the acidic tektites in chemistry) in some lunar highland samples which bolsters the lunar-origin theory. Lunar Orbiter spacecraft images reveal fields of volcanic domes that may indicate deep-seated, high-silica eruptions on the Moon, possible sources of the tektites. (These domes are similar to the Mono Lake craters of California; ironically, Mono obsidians resemble some layered tektites).
A part of one of the rock samples collected on Apollo 12, lunar sample 12013, has a composition which is remarkably similar to some tektites. It is especially similar to high-magnesium javenites (part of the Australasian field). Sample 12013 is inhomogenous in that it is composed of two types of materials, light and dark. The light, acidic portion is composed of up to 71 percent silicon dioxide. The dark portion resembles KREEP rocks. The abundances of 20 of 23 elements tested from the acidic portion of the sample showed a striking similarity to high-magnesium tektites. The major elements matched well; the minor and trace elements did not. However, other lunar samples matched some microtektites very well.
Even with great similarity to a tektite, lunar sample 12013 is not generally accepted as a tektite. However, it is similar enough to some tektites that it cannot be ignored. Thus, mineralogist Brian Mason and petrologist W.G. Melson, geologists Edward Chao, Robert J. Foster, and Jack Green — along with astronomers Mark R. Chartrand, Franklyn Branley, J.E. van Zyl, Paolo Maffei and ceramic scientist David Pye — reject the terrestrial-origin theory and support a lunar origin.
Finally, according to O'Keefe and Povenmire, Apollo 14 lunar sample 14425 resembles some high-magnesium, low silica content microtektites. However, this claim was rejected in a study by scientist B.P. Glass. Regardless, O'Keefe said that "If 14425 was found in Antarctica instead of Fra Mauro (on the Moon), it would probably have been accepted as a tektite."
--- |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 8:56 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Rather than finding out how the equipment worked, many hoax proponents prefer to take a poor guess at how they think it might have worked, and then show how their own guess wouldnt work. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
I agree that this is a poor way to expose the regime's lies. Individual citizens do not have the ability to get search warrants and collect evidence; much less can they issue and enforce subpoenas to extract sworn testimony and prosecute perjurers.
Thus, individual citizens may know they are being lied to, because they can see the contradictions and evasions; but they cannot determine the full truth of the matter on their own. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 9:01 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Reproduce the alleged 1969 moon landing.
Otherwise, you are full of shit.
Logical fallacy. Please hang up and try again. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
No, he is merely quoting standard scientific method. If scientists cannot reproduce an alleged experimental result, it belongs in this journal:
[link to www.jir.com] |
| AlienAbductee
User ID: 312874
10/15/2007 9:14 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Guys,
New poster, but I've been watching the debate for a few weeks and I haven't made up my mind on the subject.
I'd just like an opinion on how this experiment was pulled off if the whole thing was faked. This is a video of the (in)famous, depending on your point of view, feather and hammer demonstration. I don't see the feather making any significant moves as if in an atmosphere and it would be a pretty bold move to make it out of wood or plastic or something lame like that. (please don't jump me for the source of the video, it was the only place I could find it...)
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6926891572259784994
I'm looking for some real discussion on this one, because this is fairly decent evidence to me. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 9:22 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
This page takes a very interesting approach to the matter:
[link to www.informantnews.com]
It makes a reasonable argument that if everything NASA tells us is true then the moon must be a spaceship built by aliens! ;)
Of course, I have not checked each of his many factoids in detail. ;) |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 9:27 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Does this mean I can't go to the South Pole without using dogsleds? Does this mean I have to rebuild Trieste to explore the Mariana Trench (boy, won't the Japanese be unhappy!) Does this mean I have to replicate Galileo of Gallilei's little home-brew telescope in order to confirm the four largest moons of Jupiter? Does this mean if the LHC detects Z-bosons, it's no good because they aren't using the old SPS collider?
However, taking for a moment the position of Devil's Advocate I could point at, say, Thor Heyerdahl's "Kon-Tiki," or Bob Brier's modern Egyptian-style mummy, or catapult-builders in Scotland, or any of various scientific groups that have put concept to the test to see if theories of how a historical thing were done can be explicated with a modern re-creation.
Only a few tiny things stand in the way of doing such for the Apollo Program. One is the mind-boggling cost -- since so much of what went into Apollo was common then but not manufactured now, you'd be in the same position as aircraft restorers and historical recreationists, having to make from scratch the things to make the things you want to make.
The other is that there is no inspiration for it. People with the technical background to attempt such a challenge know and accept that what was documented was what was done.
A few people, however, have been intrigued enough by certain details to do little acts of recreation. The AGC, for instance (Apollo Guidance Computer) has been reconstructed both virtually and physically (using a collection of generally more modern components) by interested individual computer scientists. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/15/2007 9:32 PM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Guys,
New poster, but I've been watching the debate for a few weeks and I haven't made up my mind on the subject.
I'd just like an opinion on how this experiment was pulled off if the whole thing was faked. This is a video of the (in)famous, depending on your point of view, feather and hammer demonstration. I don't see the feather making any significant moves as if in an atmosphere and it would be a pretty bold move to make it out of wood or plastic or something lame like that. (please don't jump me for the source of the video, it was the only place I could find it...)
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6926891572259784994
I'm looking for some real discussion on this one, because this is fairly decent evidence to me. Quoting: AlienAbductee
Just use the search function at the top of the page, something like 'Moon Hoax' 'Moon Landings' ect, will bring alot of results for you to read over to see any arguments, discussions for and against the reality of the Moon Landings.
It is quite a very broad subject matter to concise down into one paragraph, |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/15/2007 9:35 PM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Does this mean I can't go to the South Pole without using dogsleds? Does this mean I have to rebuild Trieste to explore the Mariana Trench (boy, won't the Japanese be unhappy!) Does this mean I have to replicate Galileo of Gallilei's little home-brew telescope in order to confirm the four largest moons of Jupiter? Does this mean if the LHC detects Z-bosons, it's no good because they aren't using the old SPS collider? Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 287199
Sorry to say nomuse-hairgel(NIL), yes it does, so jump to it and get away on those dogsleds, also don't forget to post on GLP your adventures at the South Pole.
I hope your hair doesn't get messed up in those cold blasts! |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 9:37 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Sorry. Above was in response to this guy:
No, he is merely quoting standard scientific method. If scientists cannot reproduce an alleged experimental result, it belongs in this journal:
[ link to www.jir.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312884
10/15/2007 9:38 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Guys,
New poster, but I've been watching the debate for a few weeks and I haven't made up my mind on the subject.
I'd just like an opinion on how this experiment was pulled off if the whole thing was faked. This is a video of the (in)famous, depending on your point of view, feather and hammer demonstration. I don't see the feather making any significant moves as if in an atmosphere and it would be a pretty bold move to make it out of wood or plastic or something lame like that. (please don't jump me for the source of the video, it was the only place I could find it...)
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6926891572259784994
I'm looking for some real discussion on this one, because this is fairly decent evidence to me. Quoting: AlienAbductee
NASA constructed a huge vacuum chamber 100 feet in diameter and 122 feet high called The Space Power Facility. The construction started in 1964 and was completed in 1969 just in time for the vacuum environment simulations before the Apollo lunar landings of 1969.
[link to www.nasa.gov] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
10/15/2007 9:45 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Reproduce the alleged 1969 moon landing.
Otherwise, you are full of shit.
Logical fallacy. Please hang up and try again.
No need to.
You are a proponent of the moon missions.
38 years later, you should be able to reproduce an event from ancient history.
You cannot.
Ergo, fraud. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
Wh |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
10/15/2007 9:47 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Reproduce the alleged 1969 moon landing.
Otherwise, you are full of shit.
Logical fallacy. Please hang up and try again.
No need to.
You are a proponent of the moon missions.
38 years later, you should be able to reproduce an event from ancient history.
You cannot.
Ergo, fraud. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
I can't build a pyramid either...does that mean they don't exist. Your line of reasonaing is ridiculously childish. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 9:47 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Guys,
New poster, but I've been watching the debate for a few weeks and I haven't made up my mind on the subject.
I'd just like an opinion on how this experiment was pulled off if the whole thing was faked. This is a video of the (in)famous, depending on your point of view, feather and hammer demonstration. I don't see the feather making any significant moves as if in an atmosphere and it would be a pretty bold move to make it out of wood or plastic or something lame like that. (please don't jump me for the source of the video, it was the only place I could find it...)
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6926891572259784994
I'm looking for some real discussion on this one, because this is fairly decent evidence to me. Quoting: AlienAbductee
If you want to watch the heavy hitters, try BAUT, or Apollohoax, or the Bad Astronomer. What's been posted in this thread is kid's stuff.
Oh, let me be a Devil's Advocate one more time. If you, like Fox Mulder, want to believe, then hie off to MoonMovie (he won't give away much, though -- he'd prefer you buy his videos). Or, for a different perspective, try Hoagland's "Enterprise Mission." Just be careful never to stray from the linked hoax sites. It won't be hard, as they are careful never to link to sites that might disagree with them.
On the other hand, if you want to learn about the Apollo Program... |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 9:51 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
NASA constructed a huge vacuum chamber 100 feet in diameter and 122 feet high called The Space Power Facility. The construction started in 1964 and was completed in 1969 just in time for the vacuum environment simulations before the Apollo lunar landings of 1969.
[ link to www.nasa.gov]
In which they filmed panoramic shots and Lunar Rover journeys traveling thousands of meters in one continuous bit of footage.
Oh, wait, that was done with bluescreen. But then, why did the need the big vacuum chamber? And who was the matt artist who forgot to add the stars?
And how did the guy with the bare arm and the broom (and similar things the hoax believers keep claiming to have seen) walk around in the vacuum without a pressure suit? Why, the conspiracy just keeps growing! |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/15/2007 9:52 PM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
NASA constructed a huge vacuum chamber 100 feet in diameter and 122 feet high called The Space Power Facility. The construction started in 1964 and was completed in 1969 just in time for the vacuum environment simulations before the Apollo lunar landings of 1969.
[ link to www.nasa.gov]
Gee how many times have I heard it said by the religious believers of NASA's Manned Moon Landings, it just is not possible for NASA to fake a vacuumed lunar environment. So if they built this Space Power Facility, what was to stop them from building something a hell of alot bigger? |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/15/2007 9:57 PM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If you want to watch the heavy hitters, try BAUT, or Apollohoax, or the Bad Astronomer. What's been posted in this thread is kid's stuff.
On the other hand, if you want to learn about the Apollo Program... Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 287199
You forgot (too clever for their own good)clavius.org just be aware though, they don't tolerate or allow any dissent from the official government NASA line for long at the above sites. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 10:06 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I can't build a pyramid either...does that mean they don't exist. Your line of reasonaing is ridiculously childish. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
No, you are apparently unskilled at analogy.
An appropriate analogy regarding pyramids would be if you actually claimed to have built the pyramids yourself. Skeptics would then reasonably say, "Then prove it by building one more, under independent observation." You then, like NASA, reply: "Sorry, I've lost the ability. My magical powers are all gone. The Chinese will eventually build another pyramid instead." |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 10:20 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If you want to watch the heavy hitters, try BAUT, or Apollohoax, or the Bad Astronomer. What's been posted in this thread is kid's stuff.
On the other hand, if you want to learn about the Apollo Program...
You forgot (too clever for their own good)clavius.org just be aware though, they don't tolerate or allow any dissent from the official government NASA line for long at the above sites. Quoting: SpaceCadet
I left OUT Clavius, as it was not appropriate to the answer.
Clavius is extremely good at one thing; at discussing the most common claims made by hoax believers. As such, it is a poor resource to either present those claims in uncritical but powerful fashion, or to explore the vastly more complicated and interesting actual story of Apollo. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 10:35 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I can't build a pyramid either...does that mean they don't exist. Your line of reasonaing is ridiculously childish.
No, you are apparently unskilled at analogy.
An appropriate analogy regarding pyramids would be if you actually claimed to have built the pyramids yourself. Skeptics would then reasonably say, "Then prove it by building one more, under independent observation." You then, like NASA, reply: "Sorry, I've lost the ability. My magical powers are all gone. The Chinese will eventually build another pyramid instead." Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
Not quite the same game, though. When the scientific community challenged Pons and Flieschmann, no-one cared if it was possible to replicate the exact experiments they made (except for forensic purposes; to attempt to discover where the error had been made.)
Pons and Flieschmann did not claim "We set up a lab with this sort of beaker and this sort of power source, and oh yes the table was wood...." They claimed, in their paper, to have detected evidence of cold fusion.
It was that claim that was tested by others (and that ultimately failed verification).
Reproducibility in most of science focuses on results, not on methods.
If NASA can be said to have made a claim, it was landing men on the Moon. Not on the number of stitches in the left armpit of a pressure garment. Those are details, methods.
We are right to ask what methods they used. If Amundsen had claimed he and his men sailed to the South Pole they'd be laughed out of the room. If he claimed he and his men had walked, carrying all their supplies on their backs, there would have been some very hard questions. But he showed, openly, a program of dog-sleds and caches that made sense to other people with antarctic and similar experience. The names of the dogs is irrelevant. (Interesting, but irrelevant. There is actually a story about the dog named Pavlova, and why she was named so....)
In the case of "Kon-tiki" that I quoted earlier, there was significant doubt that a balsa-wood raft with no modern navigation equipment could have ever crossed the open Pacific. Thor Heyerdahl built one and sailed it, proving it wasn't impossible for earlier peoples to have done so. Doesn't prove they did, of course. Just proves the task is not impossible.
There is no doubt in any informed community that I am aware of that the Apollo hardware, on paper, was not capable of performing the task. There is no need to reproduce the exact hardware to "prove" it could have performed as described. Among other things, there are vastly similar pieces of hardware in many other historical and current projects.
The question is akin to doubting whether a particular early computer had the mips, or program memory, claimed for it. Regardless of whether you can wind a wire-core today, the process and history is far too well understood to make it an open question. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312884
10/15/2007 10:36 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
NASA constructed a huge vacuum chamber 100 feet in diameter and 122 feet high called The Space Power Facility. The construction started in 1964 and was completed in 1969 just in time for the vacuum environment simulations before the Apollo lunar landings of 1969.
[ link to www.nasa.gov]
In which they filmed panoramic shots and Lunar Rover journeys traveling thousands of meters in one continuous bit of footage.
Oh, wait, that was done with bluescreen. But then, why did the need the big vacuum chamber? And who was the matt artist who forgot to add the stars?
And how did the guy with the bare arm and the broom (and similar things the hoax believers keep claiming to have seen) walk around in the vacuum without a pressure suit? Why, the conspiracy just keeps growing!
AlienAbductee was not asking about panoramic shots and Lunar Rover journeys yet but this chamber is big enough for the Galileo experiment demonstrated on [link to video.google.com] where you don't see much of a panorama.
And following your logic about "the guy with the bare arm and the broom" they built this chamber for nothing. Way to go NASA. Lol |
| IDW
User ID: 312914
10/15/2007 10:42 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Does this mean I can't go to the South Pole without using dogsleds? Does this mean I have to rebuild Trieste to explore the Mariana Trench (boy, won't the Japanese be unhappy!) Does this mean I have to replicate Galileo of Gallilei's little home-brew telescope in order to confirm the four largest moons of Jupiter? Does this mean if the LHC detects Z-bosons, it's no good because they aren't using the old SPS collider?
However, taking for a moment the position of Devil's Advocate I could point at, say, Thor Heyerdahl's "Kon-Tiki," or Bob Brier's modern Egyptian-style mummy, or catapult-builders in Scotland, or any of various scientific groups that have put concept to the test to see if theories of how a historical thing were done can be explicated with a modern re-creation.
Only a few tiny things stand in the way of doing such for the Apollo Program. One is the mind-boggling cost -- since so much of what went into Apollo was common then but not manufactured now, you'd be in the same position as aircraft restorers and historical recreationists, having to make from scratch the things to make the things you want to make.
The other is that there is no inspiration for it. People with the technical background to attempt such a challenge know and accept that what was documented was what was done.
A few people, however, have been intrigued enough by certain details to do little acts of recreation. The AGC, for instance (Apollo Guidance Computer) has been reconstructed both virtually and physically (using a collection of generally more modern components) by interested individual computer scientists. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 287199
You have got to be the most confused and irrelevant individual I have ever encountered.
Would you get on the top of a saturn v5 rocket for a trip to the moon knowing what I have already taught you, fucktard? Do you think anyone else would? Nothing you say makes any sense withen the context of the conversation. It is irrelevant that you feel duplicating an event to prove it is possible is not a viable experimental option. It obviously is. I cant figure out what your point is at all. I am firmly convinced you dont know either. I am not suggesting that because we dont build a saturn and fly to the moon that the missions never occured, I am simply saying since we CANNOT do it with the tech of 40 years later, we couldnt then either. We couldnt. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 10:48 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
You have got to be the most confused and irrelevant individual I have ever encountered.
Would you get on the top of a saturn v5 rocket for a trip to the moon knowing what I have already taught you, fucktard? Do you think anyone else would? Nothing you say makes any sense withen the context of the conversation. It is irrelevant that you feel duplicating an event to prove it is possible is not a viable experimental option. It obviously is. I cant figure out what your point is at all. I am firmly convinced you dont know either. I am not suggesting that because we dont build a saturn and fly to the moon that the missions never occured, I am simply saying since we CANNOT do it with the tech of 40 years later, we couldnt then either. We couldnt. Quoting: IDW 312914
There are two points: that probably confused you.
1) There are questions best framed in the form "could this have been done this way?" Those questions can be answered with a careful re-creation. For several reasons this is not practical nor necessary in regards to Apollo.
2) More to the point, the moon landings are best framed in the form "could this have been done?" This is also the frame in which reproducibility is discussed. Reproducibility and historical re-creation have NOTHING to do with each other. Reproducibility asks merely "can it be done?" |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312914
10/15/2007 10:50 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.' Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 287199
I don't think a reply is neccessary, or even possible.
It is apparent you are lost in a world of badly twisted fanatasies.
Have you considered getting help?
You are looney tunes, pal. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 287199
10/15/2007 10:51 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Would you get on the top of a saturn v5 rocket for a trip to the moon knowing what I have already taught you, fucktard? Quoting: IDW 312914
YOU taught me?
You make yourself incredible with your own ignorance, such as your insistence the saturn 5 was fueled by liquid hydrogen.
first of all the pressure vessel used to contain the LH would neccessarily be extremely heavy to compress it to pracrical fuel densities
second, it would take a large percentage of all the hydrogen we currently produce/refine. Quoting: IDW 312914
Yes, you certainly know your rocketry! (Hey..maybe it IS "rocket science.") |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312914
10/15/2007 11:12 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Would you get on the top of a saturn v5 rocket for a trip to the moon knowing what I have already taught you, fucktard?
YOU taught me?
You make yourself incredible with your own ignorance, such as your insistence the saturn 5 was fueled by liquid hydrogen.
first of all the pressure vessel used to contain the LH would neccessarily be extremely heavy to compress it to pracrical fuel densities
second, it would take a large percentage of all the hydrogen we currently produce/refine.
Yes, you certainly know your rocketry! (Hey..maybe it IS "rocket science.") Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 287199
The largest and first stage was fueled by kerosene and liquid oxygen under extreme pressure. The rocket had to have several pressure vessels for the various stages that had to withstand thousands of pounds /square inch. |
| IDW
User ID: 312914
10/15/2007 11:21 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
It might suprise you to learn that the basic liquid fueled rocket is one of the least complicated machines in existance. The complexity of a chemical energy rocket pales in comparison to a fuel injected automobile.
That is "rocket science" is overated as to complexity. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
