I have a bit more work to do today, so my responses will be more sporadic from this point.
My father had been in the OSS during WWII and one day, shortly before he died, told me in confidence that we had never succeeded in landing on the moon.
Quoting: FreshLaundry
And my uncle was Neil Armstrong, and he said that he definitely did land on the Moon.
You'll have to excuse me if I find an unsubstantiated letter making unspecific allegations a less that credible source.
In essence, we went from the first liquid rockets (V2's) to the giant Saturn rockets within the span of 25 years. That would be the same equivalent of going from the 1918 Sopwith Camel biplane fighters to the Concord in 25 years.
Quoting: FreshLaundry
No, you don't get to just make that sort of comparison in the most extreme terms available. I could rephrase it as saying that it was like going from a Sopwith Camel to a Messerschmitt 262 jet fighter in 26 years. That, apart from being true, is pretty amazing evidence of the advances of technology in a short timeframe.
It simply didn't happen.
Quoting: FreshLaundry
Umm...Saturn V development quite clearly did happen, whether you believe that it took men to the Moon or not. Hundreds of thousands of people watched each launch in person from Florida. I am from Western Australia, and 28 years ago bits of a very heavy Saturn V payload known as Skylab scattered large chunks of debris across our state.
It's not like the rocket development went fro V-2 to S-V in one quantum leap. There was incremental development, from Redstone and Atlas all the way to Saturn. This part can be in no dispute, becuase so many people actaully saw it in action.
So if this informant can get his only defined claim so completely wrong, what are we to make of his other handwaving, unspecified allegations?
Now that the old exNAZI regime have passed on, NASA is saying that we "might" be able to get a man on the moon in another 10 to 12 years.
Quoting: FreshLaundry
Putting words in NASA's mouth, another constant rhetorical trick amongst HBs. The quotes around "might" clearly imply that this is meant to be word for word what NASA said - that they are uncertain about the potential success of their project. I call bullshit on that. NASA has always couched their discussion of the project in glowing terms, and with a firm target date for the first return mission. Why would they do otherwise?
I can vividly remember all of the positive NASA talk from the 1960's. Now, decades later, NASA doesn't seem to be so sure about their capabilities.
Quoting: FreshLaundry
Again, I call bullshit on that. The only reason I can see that the correspondent would make this up is to dishonestly make NASA appear less trustworthy. Why can't his arguments stand on their own merits, why does he feel the need to bolster it with untruths?
For the record, I think that NASA's current lunar plans are going to undergo serious revision, for political, technical and financial reasons. I think it likely that China or private enterprise will beat them back to the Moon. I am not a relentless NASA cherrleader - I thing they have relentlessly screwed the pooch since the end of Skylab, and are becomeing increasingly irrelevant. I still respect their achievemetns during their glory days, though.
Barls Knarkley User ID: 177477 10/3/2007 11:18 PM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
Fine, dispute it. You show me where in the A-11 video there are any changes to any topographical objects in the field of view during the descent. Can you find one thing (except the obvious shadow that casts on the surface on the point of contact) that changes in size or becomes clearer in detail during the LEMs descent onto the surface?
Quoting: mj-13
No, I think you'll note that I asked you first. You are the one making the allegation, so you need to show why you became convinved you are right. The standard way these things go here is that someone will make a vague allegation and consider it absolute proof. When challenged on the specifics, they will demand that the debunker be the one to do the calculations that the accuser was too lazy or incapable of doing themselves. If you can't state your claim with vigor, then nobody is compelled to take your accusation seriously.
Fine, dispute it. You show me where in the A-11 video there are any changes to any topographical objects in the field of view during the descent. Can you find one thing (except the obvious shadow that casts on the surface on the point of contact) that changes in size or becomes clearer in detail during the LEMs descent onto the surface?
No, I think you'll note that I asked you first. You are the one making the allegation, so you need to show why you became convinved you are right. The standard way these things go here is that someone will make a vague allegation and consider it absolute proof. When challenged on the specifics, they will demand that the debunker be the one to do the calculations that the accuser was too lazy or incapable of doing themselves. If you can't state your claim with vigor, then nobody is compelled to take your accusation seriously.
Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Okay, fine. During the lunar landing of the lunar excursion module, the surface of the moon and all of its details never change in size or detail. If the images we are watching are genuine, the surface details (ie craters, lines, bumps, or any other deviations) would change in size and would become clearer the closer we came to them. Granted, there isn't much to see except some craters and a few mounds, but nothing in the video feed changes in size or clarity. The only thing changing is when the LEM makes contact with the surface and the shadow appears. Imagine, if you will, you are a sky diver and you decided to video your experience. After jumping out of the plane, your specialized head gear cam on your helmet records your descent. As the ground gets closer, the small objects in the field of view start to get larger and larger until you start to make out details of what constitutes those objects. Small ant like creatures walking on a line become clear enough for you to see that they are cars driving on the road or highway. Small blue dots that look like candy become residential swimming pools. Are you getting the picture?
Anonymous Coward User ID: 129807 10/4/2007 12:04 AM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
I have a bit more work to do today, so my responses will be more sporadic from this point.
My father had been in the OSS during WWII and one day, shortly before he died, told me in confidence that we had never succeeded in landing on the moon.
And my uncle was Neil Armstrong, and he said that he definitely did land on the Moon.
You'll have to excuse me if I find an unsubstantiated letter making unspecific allegations a less that credible source.
Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Less credible than, say you?
You'll have to excuse us if we don't believe you have other "work" to do.
What kind of work would that be that allows you to spend unlimited amounts of time on the internet, desperately trying to convince people to abandon their own observations and common sense?
My suggestion, which was buried in a bunch of bullshit, was that someone take that descent footage you are talking about and compare the size and position of the craters in it to the large model in Flagstaff, AZ. To the best of my knowledge, it is the largest spherical model of the moon's surface and would therefore have functioned well as a substitute for a hoaxed descent - rotating it to give the appearance of lateral movement.
If it is a scale model of the moon then the craters should relate to a macro view of the moon's surface, not the close up view upon approach. Given full access to the sphere it shouldn't be too difficult to find the matching Apollo camera angle, if it exists of course.
Quoting: FreshLaundry
Honestly, we could all speculate how it was accomplished. You bring up good points.
If the images we are watching are genuine, the surface details (ie craters, lines, bumps, or any other deviations) would change in size and would become clearer the closer we came to them.
Quoting: mj-13
Do the craters and other features translate sideways out of the picture? You surely aren't claiming that the same features remain visible for the entire duration of the clip with no movement of any kind?
Granted, there isn't much to see except some craters and a few mounds,
Quoting: mj-13
This is an important admission, and one I'll return to in a moment.
Imagine, if you will, you are a sky diver and you decided to video your experience. After jumping out of the plane, your specialized head gear cam on your helmet records your descent. As the ground gets closer, the small objects in the field of view start to get larger and larger until you start to make out details of what constitutes those objects. Small ant like creatures walking on a line become clear enough for you to see that they are cars driving on the road or highway. Small blue dots that look like candy become residential swimming pools. Are you getting the picture?
Quoting: mj-13
Yep. Now tell me which of those highly differentiated features you would expect to see on the Moon. You yourself have admitted that the scenery is very bland, with few features to distinguish it. In your counterexample, you have chosen to use roads and swimming pools, which are human artifacts that have a certain scale, and fine structure. If you did your skydive over the Sahara, would you be able to easily tell just how big the sand dunes were when you were at high altitude? What features do you expect to be different in a 15 meter crater as opposed to a 150 meter crater? You still haven't explained what features you are tracking in order to determine that there is no change of scale. Are you doing crater counts?
Barls Knarkley User ID: 177477 10/4/2007 1:04 AM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
What kind of work would that be that allows you to spend unlimited amounts of time on the internet, desperately trying to convince people to abandon their own observations and common sense?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 129807
I'm on phone support this week. It's school holidays here, so the workload is light, and I can type up my replies in between answering calls. In other words, I have a short window of opportunity to keep track of this thread. It's not like I do this sort of volume all the time, I just have a few days with time on my hands.
How does this affect the content of my arguments, by the way? Facts are facts, regardless of who I work for. This is what is so amusing about the constant 'paid shill' trolls - the impression seems to be that if unsubstantiated aspersions are cast on my motives, that somehow changes the laws of physics and makes my arguments invalid. It's such a childish worldview. I'm not paid to do this, I'm just passionate about space travel and interested in using these debates to hone my debate skills.
I note in oparticular that you seem to have abandoned all pretense at presenting arguments and are now focusing on ad homs.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 307691 10/4/2007 9:53 AM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
You need to read between the lines. He genuinely believes what he is saying and has been perfectly honest in that regard and about who he is.
He is not a shill, a paid one anyway. He is a 39 year old Brit working a dead end phone job with a lot of time on his hands. 1 year after he was born it was announced that NASA had put a man on the moon. When he was old enough to catch space fever he did and devoted himself to learning as much as he could. Life can be pretty boring for British kids and they often submerge themselves in details, much more so than I've ever seen with lazy-ass American children.
Sadly (and I know this because I was born there) despite their genetic intellect the Brits suffer from a very severe "I'm right, you're wrong" syndrome with an acute case of "If something is broke it must be your fault," the usual bitching and moaning that plagues us all as a species, and a sneer of condescension and uppity irrational pride. He did not escape that national heritage.
He also thinks that he is improving his 'debate skills' for a future job as a communications expert. These skills are nothing of the kind as the original subject matter is never in question in his mind and the points for or against get buried completely in minutia. He also is never convincing anyone of anything; either because his bitter personality gets in the way of the information or because he doesn't actually care if he changes your mind -- because the real point of the debate is for him to be proven right, to win, not to be historically accurate about what really happened. Our side is flaky and unsure and much of what we suspect is kept in secret - that's no good for someone so detail oriented who needs to pour over numbers and substantial details to be comforted - no good for someone who enjoys confirmation from the real scientists and the experts that he has admired his whole life.
The problem is, it gets him truly angry that we can dismiss the entire NASA program with no scientific backgrounds and little to no knowledge or details after reading a few websites or watching a documentary; versus his investing a lifetime of love and study into NASA and the exploration of space -- which would all be for naught if Apollo was proven a hoax. He has much more to lose than you or I so I would caution you to be more sensitive to his position.
If I had acknowledged his request and responded with which 'tricks' he used in our conversation he would then quote each line and try and refute those points claiming that he was just blah blah and I'm just avoiding blah blah... and I would refute those blah blah... and the entire crux of the conversation, i.e. whether the backpacks could truly dissipate that much heat, whether the batteries were adequate, whether the suits were capable of deflecting solar radiation, the plaster paris model comparison... all gets lost in the shuffle. That is not debate. In fact, I've had girlfriends that use the same tactic which is why my usual response is to ignore the detractor (baited) lines of argument.
(Barls future response: "Well go on then, let's have it then. Tell me exactly why couldn't the backpacks dissipate that much heat? What exactly is wrong with the design that you can see, hmm?")
That one is truly impressive. I have no reason to doubt the claims of the creator, who is obviously ex-NASA or associated and pissed off about it (he uses 'astroNOT' hundreds of times), or that letter to the editor I posted which you were so quick to tear apart (why would somebody lie about that story? why those particular details? who are you to discount that man's life?), with my name as the quotation source, unfortunately, but I know I was lazy and did post that way so I don't blame you for that.
You answered my moral question ("if they did hoax, should NASA come clean?") by stating there is only one true answer to that question. You are right sir, there is. If someone did something so heinous, not just to America, but to mislead the entire human species, then they have a moral imperative to rectify that horrible mistake in judgment. You, my friend, are helping them perpetrate this lie upon us all. I disagree with the others that you are under any official obligation to do it, but I want you to know that you are helping NASA get away with murder -- and I mean that quite literally (Apollo 1).
You disagree with the war on terror, yes? With Bush? Are you an expert in economics? Are you an expert in American government or constitutional history? No you are not. You have a 'hunch' based on the available evidence that they are lying, dirty, thieving bastards -- and you would be right about that. As we are right about this. But that's not the point, is it?
I do, too. It's like watching an obsessive-compulsive run around the house, and before leaving, checks all the doors and windows over and over and over.
But, it's kinda sad in a way, too.
Barls Knarkley User ID: 28648 10/4/2007 1:02 PM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
He is a 39 year old Brit working a dead end phone job with a lot of time on his hands.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307691
Why do you think I'm British? I have stated several times that I am Australian. You need to brush up on your research skills if you didn't pick that up in your trawl back through my posts. How do you know I'm not from somewhere else originally? It would seem that you are just grasping at whatever personal details I have dropped, and have attempted to spin trolls from each item. See the job reference below.
'Dead end' is a dead giveaway that beneath your seeming compassionate condescension lies trollish intent. You know nothing about the particulars of my employment, so you obviously chose to use that phrase not because of what you knew, but because you intended the phrase to create an emotional response in me. For the record, I work in human health, my position affects the lives of others, and it has a good career path. And you are a troll who has gone to an awful lot of effort crafting an ad hominem, rather than actually trying to prove the truth is on your side. I guess you've just given up on that entirely.
These skills are nothing of the kind as the original subject matter is never in question in his mind
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307691
Why do you assume that? It seems to be a universal precondition for hoax believers to assert this. I can only guess that they need to justify their own blind faith in their 'gut feelings' by assuming that anyone who disagrees with them is similarly blindly dogmatic. I believe in the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, and experiment. When I first read about the hoax claims quite a few years ago, there were a few, primarily the photography ones rather than the physics ones, that troubled me because I didn't know enough about the subject to recognise I was being misled. I did some research, though, and found that a little extra knowledge about the subject worked wonders. And no, I didn't just swallow the glib explanation of a 'paid shill' I did my own reading, referred back to photography sources that had nothing to do with space travel. I asked a photographer a couple of questions. In other words, I tried to make myself as fully informed as I could without being beholden to any one viewpoint. And I became satisfied that all the hoax accusations were false.
I never insist that people blindly believe what I tell them. I provide links, external to NASA where possible, so anyone can use them as the jumping off point for their own attempt to educate themselves.
and the points for or against get buried completely in minutia.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307691
Yet more troll language. You imply that my requests for clarification or supporting evidence are 'minute', as in insignificant, or beneath notice. You can label them that all you want, but that is your problem. Once again, if you actually think, as your emotive language at the end of this post indicates you do, that people deserve to know 'the truth', then that means you recognise the need to convince people. The sticking point is that you seem to think that you should be allowed to make vague, handwaving allegations and say that you have an instinctive feel about it, so that is as good as a signed confession from Armstrong himself. Do you honestly believe that is going to work?
The points for and against have to be argued based on the evidence. If you want to abandon the point when you realise that your incompletely informed grasp of the subject may have been simplistic, then go ahead. To attempt to claim the other person is babbling or obfuscating simply because you can't keep up is also not going to win many converts to your cause from the sidelines.
because the real point of the debate is for him to be proven right, to win,
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307691
No, it is for the truth to win. If I lose a point, then it will be because the truth demands it. for example, I stated on the 'missing tapes' issue that some of them had been found her in W.A. until someone linked to an article that said that it turned out that they weren't the relevant tapes after all. I then apologised for presenting incorrect information, and have not used the claim since. I am not afraid of the truth. Why are you afraid of putting your ideas to the test?
not to be historically accurate about what really happened.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307691
So you are once again claiming that I argue at variance with my beliefs, that my motivation is to beat the other person even if I have to lie to do it. I would like to know what evidence you have, beyond your instincts, that leads you to believe this. Because it looks like a troll from here.
The problem is, it gets him truly angry that we can dismiss the entire NASA program with no scientific backgrounds and little to no knowledge or details after reading a few websites or watching a documentary;
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307691
Never angry. Exasperated. Irritated, at worst.
versus his investing a lifetime of love and study into NASA and the exploration of space -- which would all be for naught if Apollo was proven a hoax.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307691
In other words, you think I am scared that your instincts will convince everybody that the evidence of the entire scientific community is deliberately falsified? Good luck with that. You are just trolling.
If I had acknowledged his request and responded with which 'tricks' he used in our conversation he would then quote each line and try and refute those points claiming that he was just blah blah and I'm just avoiding blah blah... and I would refute those blah blah...
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307691
Yep. Because if you make a claim like that, then you should be able to provide clear evidence of it. You accused me of dishonesty. It would seem you are not going to back that up,as you know it was just a rhetorical belittling device on your part, not something you could actually show to be, you know, true. Troll.
(Barls future response: "Well go on then, let's have it then. Tell me exactly why couldn't the backpacks dissipate that much heat? What exactly is wrong with the design that you can see, hmm?")
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307691
Remember what I said the last time you used this technique? Grow up. This is the rhetorical petulance of a twelve year old who believes that by using it he is demonstrating he can predict the other person and is thus smarter than them. What it in fact proves is that you are aware that your position is untenable.
Let's sum up your position: You claim that there is something wrong with the suit, so you think this supports the notion of a hoax. I ask what is wrong with the suit. You tell me I am bogging you down in minutiae, and the important point is that the suit doesn't work. I know I'm being facetious, but that is really what we appear to have boiled down to here.
You answered my moral question ("if they did hoax, should NASA come clean?") by stating there is only one true answer to that question. You are right sir, there is.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307691
And you then go on to deliver the set piece to camera that you were waiting on my response to cue up. I ask again, why bother asking me the question? The answer again is that you were seeking to score rhetorical points, to try to present me as being forced to accede to your logic. It's a cheap trick, and a transparent one.
So you find Sam Colby's site very convincing, do you? Cool. I think it's the only way we are going to continue this conversation at this point. Because I'm sick of the trolling. You have made this post almost content free, so my response has been limited to showing you the blinkers you are putting on your critical thinking, and to decry your trolling. I won't do that again. You can raise a point to discuss, or we can just talk past each other to anyone else that posts here.
You say that you consider the linked site convincing. Pick one bit of it that you think is particularly damning. Then tell me why you find it convincing. Because I assume you are not going to believe it simply because it is written there. If you came across a line in the middle of it that said "and the Saturn rockets were made of cheese!", then you would be likely to think "No, hang on. He's right about this other stuff, but he must have made a mistake on that one". In other words, you are not blindly assuming he is right just because he argues in favour of the hoax, right? You agree with him because he makes sense to you. So please explain to me why any one point makes sense to you.
You show me where in the A-11 video there are any changes to any topographical objects in the field of view during the descent.
Quoting: mj-13
I know what you mean, having wondered about that myself. But not Apollo 11 that much as on another mission the shadow of the LM can be seen from much farther away. I guess it was Apollo 15. It looks like only the shadow is enlarged with the LM hovering at the same low altitude.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 142537 10/4/2007 5:26 PM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
It's probable that some aspects of the Apollo program were faked in a studio, in fact this has pretty much been official admitted if you know where to look.
Bulldust. Complete rubbish. If you know where to look, why not show us?
Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
TRY THIS LINK AGAIN, IDIOT.
YOU WERE IN SUCH A HURRY TO BAD MOUTH SOMEBODY, YOU COULDN'T LIFT YOUR LAZY FINGER TO CLICK ON THE LINK SEVERAL PAGES BACK.
It's probable that some aspects of the Apollo program were faked in a studio, in fact this has pretty much been official admitted if you know where to look.
Bulldust. Complete rubbish. If you know where to look, why not show us?
TRY THIS LINK AGAIN, IDIOT.
YOU WERE IN SUCH A HURRY TO BAD MOUTH SOMEBODY, YOU COULDN'T LIFT YOUR LAZY FINGER TO CLICK ON THE LINK SEVERAL PAGES BACK.
You show me where in the A-11 video there are any changes to any topographical objects in the field of view during the descent.
I know what you mean, having wondered about that myself. But not Apollo 11 that much as on another mission the shadow of the LM can be seen from much farther away. I guess it was Apollo 15. It looks like only the shadow is enlarged with the LM hovering at the same low altitude.
Quoting: McKracken
Thank you. But as far as A-11, it is very apparent in the landing.
Barls Knarkley User ID: 177477 10/4/2007 11:34 PM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
You keep saying that. I keep asking how you determined that. Did you read my questions about whether the craters were translating sideways, and why it is easier for a skydiver over highways and swimming pools to judge scale that one over the Sahara or an LM descending to the Moon? Can you confirm you did anything like crater counts?
If the images we are watching are genuine, the surface details (ie craters, lines, bumps, or any other deviations) would change in size and would become clearer the closer we came to them.
Do the craters and other features translate sideways out of the picture? You surely aren't claiming that the same features remain visible for the entire duration of the clip with no movement of any kind?
Granted, there isn't much to see except some craters and a few mounds,
This is an important admission, and one I'll return to in a moment.
Imagine, if you will, you are a sky diver and you decided to video your experience. After jumping out of the plane, your specialized head gear cam on your helmet records your descent. As the ground gets closer, the small objects in the field of view start to get larger and larger until you start to make out details of what constitutes those objects. Small ant like creatures walking on a line become clear enough for you to see that they are cars driving on the road or highway. Small blue dots that look like candy become residential swimming pools. Are you getting the picture?
Yep. Now tell me which of those highly differentiated features you would expect to see on the Moon. You yourself have admitted that the scenery is very bland, with few features to distinguish it. In your counterexample, you have chosen to use roads and swimming pools, which are human artifacts that have a certain scale, and fine structure. If you did your skydive over the Sahara, would you be able to easily tell just how big the sand dunes were when you were at high altitude? What features do you expect to be different in a 15 meter crater as opposed to a 150 meter crater? You still haven't explained what features you are tracking in order to determine that there is no change of scale. Are you doing crater counts?
Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
You asked me a question and it was answered. As far as objects are concerned, it doesn't matter how many or what they are in regards to my point. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that an objective (any objective) in relation to a camera or an observer, changes scale and clarity when proximity changes. I don't care what it is you are looking at. Now, I asked you a simple (non loaded) question. That question was: can you find any object that, in the A-11 LEM descent feed, that changes scale or clarity? It is that simple. Can you find any thing that displays these characteristics (except the shadow)? Does any thing change in that image? If so, what?
Barls Knarkley User ID: 177477 10/4/2007 11:57 PM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
No, I do not have telemetry confirming data which, of course, could only be obtained from NASA.
Quoting: mj-13
I don't recall asking you for them. I asked how you determined that nothing was changing. I asked if you were counting craters to see if the frequency changed with time over the course of the clip. I asked what features you were examining in your search for changes. I asked what difference you expected to see between a 150m crater and a 15m crater. I don't see answers to any of those questions. Why are you bringing up stuff about telemetry?
Oh, and by the way, not too long ago, NASA conveniently confirmed that it lost (of all things) the A-11 telemetry tapes.
Quoting: mj-13
Oh, that's why. You're trying to change the subject.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that an objective (any objective) in relation to a camera or an observer, changes scale and clarity when proximity changes.
Quoting: mj-13
Not in dispute. What I'm trying to determine is how you assessed the changes, and what changes you expected to see. The example you gave was of swimming pools and highways, that have structure that defines them easily, given they are common constructs so we know what scale we are looking at when we see one. Nobody expects a backyard pool to be 300m across. How are you determining the scale of what you are looking at in the Apollo footage? Remember, you yourself said,
Granted, there isn't much to see except some craters and a few mounds
Quoting: mj-13
So you recognise the difficulty of working out what you are looking at. So how do you know that you aren't being fooled as to the changes in scale between objects that look the same no matter what size they are?
Now, I asked you a simple (non loaded) question. That question was: can you find any object that, in the A-11 LEM descent feed, that changes scale or clarity? It is that simple.
Quoting: mj-13
And I resonded that you were the one who had made the claim, so you should be the one to show how you arrived at that conclusion. Your question is not non loaded. If I respond that the similarities between large and small craters make it difficult to judge scale, then you will likely take that as an admission that the scale is not changing. This is not the case. You have not explained why your view on what is happening is the only possible one. Why should I attempt to prove your argument for you when you can't be bothered to do it for yourself?
No, I do not have telemetry confirming data which, of course, could only be obtained from NASA.
I don't recall asking you for them. I asked how you determined that nothing was changing. I asked if you were counting craters to see if the frequency changed with time over the course of the clip. I asked what features you were examining in your search for changes. I asked what difference you expected to see between a 150m crater and a 15m crater. I don't see answers to any of those questions. Why are you bringing up stuff about telemetry?
Oh, and by the way, not too long ago, NASA conveniently confirmed that it lost (of all things) the A-11 telemetry tapes.
Oh, that's why. You're trying to change the subject.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that an objective (any objective) in relation to a camera or an observer, changes scale and clarity when proximity changes.
Not in dispute. What I'm trying to determine is how you assessed the changes, and what changes you expected to see. The example you gave was of swimming pools and highways, that have structure that defines them easily, given they are common constructs so we know what scale we are looking at when we see one. Nobody expects a backyard pool to be 300m across. How are you determining the scale of what you are looking at in the Apollo footage? Remember, you yourself said,
Granted, there isn't much to see except some craters and a few mounds
So you recognise the difficulty of working out what you are looking at. So how do you know that you aren't being fooled as to the changes in scale between objects that look the same no matter what size they are?
Now, I asked you a simple (non loaded) question. That question was: can you find any object that, in the A-11 LEM descent feed, that changes scale or clarity? It is that simple.
And I resonded that you were the one who had made the claim, so you should be the one to show how you arrived at that conclusion. Your question is not non loaded. If I respond that the similarities between large and small craters make it difficult to judge scale, then you will likely take that as an admission that the scale is not changing. This is not the case. You have not explained why your view on what is happening is the only possible one. Why should I attempt to prove your argument for you when you can't be bothered to do it for yourself?
Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Again, the objects in the feed do not change. Craters, bumps and lines do not change in the lunar decent.
Barls Knarkley User ID: 177477 10/5/2007 12:29 AM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
Again, the objects in the feed do not change. Craters, bumps and lines do not change in the lunar decent.
Quoting: mj-13
You keep saying that. I keep asking you to clarify. Are you saying that the same craters remain constantly in frame for the entire duration of the descent video? Or are they moving laterally out of the field of view to be replaced by other craters? How are you judging the lack of change?
How do you determine the difference in appearance between a 150m crater and a 15m crater?
Anonymous Coward User ID: 142537 10/5/2007 2:35 AM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
It's probable that some aspects of the Apollo program were faked in a studio, in fact this has pretty much been official admitted if you know where to look.
Bulldust. Complete rubbish. If you know where to look, why not show us?
TRY THIS LINK AGAIN, IDIOT.
YOU WERE IN SUCH A HURRY TO BAD MOUTH SOMEBODY, YOU COULDN'T LIFT YOUR LAZY FINGER TO CLICK ON THE LINK SEVERAL PAGES BACK.
Kooks have reached a new high in low when they offer youtube links as proof, and don't have enough sense to be embarrassed.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 275863
WHAT ARE YOU IMPLYING SILL WHORE? ARE YOU GONNA COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT PROVES THIS VIDEO WRONG? YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS PRODUCE DOUBT, SHILL WHORE, AND WE AIN'T GOIN FOR IT.
No we did not go to the moon. It was a hollywood hoax film at it's worst. If we would have gone to the moon we would have returned. Notice all the space shuttle missions and technology we have today, but we don't bother to go back to the moon. WTF is up with that. Its one of two things. if we went to the moon we are returning secretly. If we never went we are still trying to get there.
Barls Knarkley User ID: 177477 10/5/2007 4:30 AM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
No we did not go to the moon. It was a hollywood hoax film at it's worst. If we would have gone to the moon we would have returned. Notice all the space shuttle missions and technology we have today, but we don't bother to go back to the moon. WTF is up with that. Its one of two things. if we went to the moon we are returning secretly. If we never went we are still trying to get there.
Quoting: L0rds0faciD
Or alternatively, it cost a whole lot of money, and congress turned off the tap.
If you think that failure to follow up on an achievement promptly is a sign of fakery, what do you think of the following cases?
The first South Pole missions were in 1912. Nobody returned to the pole until the 1950s, when a plane landed to set up the South Polar base. That's over 40 years between visits. Were the first missions by Scott and Amundsen faked?
There has only ever been one crewed mission tot he bottom of the Marianas Trench, the deepest point on Earth. That was the mission of the bathyscaphe Trieste in the early sixties. Nobody has ever been back. Was the Trieste a fake?
Going to the Moon costs billions of dollars. If we aren't going now, it is a sign of financial issues, not technological one. Here's one final example - the Concorde has not flown for several years now. It was grounded largely due to being unprofitable. Does the fact that economics have grounded the only supersonic passenger plane in the world mean that it never flew at all, or that we don't have the capability to design a new one if the money becomes available?
Anonymous Coward User ID: 91985 10/5/2007 1:05 PM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
You need to read between the lines. He genuinely believes what he is saying and has been perfectly honest in that regard and about who he is.
He is not a shill, a paid one anyway. He is a 39 year old Brit working a dead end phone job with a lot of time on his hands. 1 year after he was born it was announced that NASA had put a man on the moon. When he was old enough to catch space fever he did and devoted himself to learning as much as he could. Life can be pretty boring for British kids and they often submerge themselves in details, much more so than I've ever seen with lazy-ass American children.
Sadly (and I know this because I was born there) despite their genetic intellect the Brits suffer from a very severe "I'm right, you're wrong" syndrome with an acute case of "If something is broke it must be your fault," the usual bitching and moaning that plagues us all as a species, and a sneer of condescension and uppity irrational pride. He did not escape that national heritage.
He also thinks that he is improving his 'debate skills' for a future job as a communications expert. These skills are nothing of the kind as the original subject matter is never in question in his mind and the points for or against get buried completely in minutia. He also is never convincing anyone of anything; either because his bitter personality gets in the way of the information or because he doesn't actually care if he changes your mind -- because the real point of the debate is for him to be proven right, to win, not to be historically accurate about what really happened. Our side is flaky and unsure and much of what we suspect is kept in secret - that's no good for someone so detail oriented who needs to pour over numbers and substantial details to be comforted - no good for someone who enjoys confirmation from the real scientists and the experts that he has admired his whole life.
The problem is, it gets him truly angry that we can dismiss the entire NASA program with no scientific backgrounds and little to no knowledge or details after reading a few websites or watching a documentary; versus his investing a lifetime of love and study into NASA and the exploration of space -- which would all be for naught if Apollo was proven a hoax. He has much more to lose than you or I so I would caution you to be more sensitive to his position.
If I had acknowledged his request and responded with which 'tricks' he used in our conversation he would then quote each line and try and refute those points claiming that he was just blah blah and I'm just avoiding blah blah... and I would refute those blah blah... and the entire crux of the conversation, i.e. whether the backpacks could truly dissipate that much heat, whether the batteries were adequate, whether the suits were capable of deflecting solar radiation, the plaster paris model comparison... all gets lost in the shuffle. That is not debate. In fact, I've had girlfriends that use the same tactic which is why my usual response is to ignore the detractor (baited) lines of argument.
(Barls future response: "Well go on then, let's have it then. Tell me exactly why couldn't the backpacks dissipate that much heat? What exactly is wrong with the design that you can see, hmm?")
That one is truly impressive. I have no reason to doubt the claims of the creator, who is obviously ex-NASA or associated and pissed off about it (he uses 'astroNOT' hundreds of times), or that letter to the editor I posted which you were so quick to tear apart (why would somebody lie about that story? why those particular details? who are you to discount that man's life?), with my name as the quotation source, unfortunately, but I know I was lazy and did post that way so I don't blame you for that.
You answered my moral question ("if they did hoax, should NASA come clean?") by stating there is only one true answer to that question. You are right sir, there is. If someone did something so heinous, not just to America, but to mislead the entire human species, then they have a moral imperative to rectify that horrible mistake in judgment. You, my friend, are helping them perpetrate this lie upon us all. I disagree with the others that you are under any official obligation to do it, but I want you to know that you are helping NASA get away with murder -- and I mean that quite literally (Apollo 1).
You disagree with the war on terror, yes? With Bush? Are you an expert in economics? Are you an expert in American government or constitutional history? No you are not. You have a 'hunch' based on the available evidence that they are lying, dirty, thieving bastards -- and you would be right about that. As we are right about this. But that's not the point, is it?
Quoting: Fresh Laundry
Fresh Laundry, despite the nationality error, this is the most brilliant (and funniest) psychological analysis I've seen anywhere in a long time.
I think you're spot on, but I just can't believe that someone with Barls' intelligence can find a justification for every crazy Apollo anomaly, which are so numerous and so obvious that credulty isn't just strained, it's smashed into tiny pieces, put through a wood chipper, set on fire and buried.
It's like telling him his entire world view is a fraud. He's actually somewhat similar to my brother who flatly declared recently that he'd bet his life that the Apollo missions were real. "You'd bet your life?", I thought. I wouldn't bet my life on a single historical "fact" being true in this entire deceit-ridden world. In my mind, the chances that the Apollo missions were genuine have similar odds to 9/11 happening like the government claims. Which is to say, literally nil.
Anyway, I especially enjoyed this part, especially when he dissected your post line-by-line and did the exact same thing, probably subconsciously:
(Barls future response: "Well go on then, let's have it then. Tell me exactly why couldn't the backpacks dissipate that much heat? What exactly is wrong with the design that you can see, hmm?")
Quoting: Fresh Laundry
But this is why I don't like Barls:
I disagree with the others that you are under any official obligation to do it, but I want you to know that you are helping NASA get away with murder -- and I mean that quite literally (Apollo 1).
Quoting: Fresh Laundry
Whether Barls is a paid government shill or not, It's absolutely inexcusable for him to deny the reality of the world -- either because he can't psychologically handle the truth or he really is employed by the dark side -- and spend so much time promulgating outrageous historical deceptions, even murder (you're absolutely correct, as Scott Grissom alleges.) The Apollo 1 astronauts and others have been murdered to silence them.
Can you find one thing (except the obvious shadow that casts on the surface on the point of contact) that changes in size or becomes clearer in detail during the LEMs descent onto the surface?
Quoting: mj-13
I guess the solution is the missing atmosphere on the moon. Distant objects are not blurred like on Earth by atmospheric haze.
If you watch the Apollo 15 descent you can see the Hadley Rille which is a few hundred meters wide to have a scale: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
Without any scale for objects the craters indeed look all the same. It helps a bit to fast forward and reverse the videos. However, that does not help with my doubts about Apollo.
Again, the objects in the feed do not change. Craters, bumps and lines do not change in the lunar decent.
Quoting: mj-13
Watch the Apollo 11 lift-off from the Moon: The Eagle Has Landed 1969
[link to video.google.com]
Eagle-Apollo 11 lift-off from Moon, Astronaut & Houston mention 'going down the Model Moon TV railway-track'!
At 18:39, it makes mention of a 'vertical rise', however it is clearly seen that it is only a 'horizontal rise sideways' & no vertical upward rise at all, as if the camera is travelling horizontally on a tv film rail-way track.
At 18:50, Neil Armstrong says, "We've gone right down US 1"
At 18:54, Houston Control replies, "Eagle-Houston, your've gone right down the track, everything is looking great"
You can see where this part of the supposed Eagle-Apollo 11 lift-off from the Moon was filmed. It was actually filming an artificial large Moon model, with a movie railway track right next to it.
Armstrong & Houston Control put this reference to how this tv shot was really done, in the tv scripted conversation, to possibly no doubt be picked up on by someone later on!
Anonymous Coward User ID: 308090 10/5/2007 4:42 PM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
This Barls guy reminds of the the religious folks who try to prove the Jesus story.
He clings to the official tale as if his life depends on it.
The Space Shuttle can go no higher than 400 miles up.
The Moon is 244,000 miles from earth, yet we are to believe that almost 40 years later, the best we can do is 400 miles up.
Quite strange.
It seems like regressive technology.
We went from Bi-planes to SR-71 Blackbirds in about 30-35 years.
In the last 38-40 years, we went from being able to land humans on the moon, 244,000 miles away, to only being able to put humans 400 miles above the earth.
Logically, by now, you would think that we would have Walmarts on the moon and condo's, and golf courses.
Weird is all I'm sayin.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 91985 10/5/2007 6:51 PM
Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
Barls, just out of curiosity, have you ever uncovered anything that gave you pause about the viability of the Apollo program, even temporarily?
My brother is also an intelligent person and a true-believer. The mere notion that something like the Apollo moon missions could've been faked causes his mind to concoct what I consider to be outlandish scenarios that he'd normally never entertain.
We were watching the three-hour, 30-year anniversary A&E retrospective from 1999, which I found fascinating. But some of those early mission lighting situations were so bizarre that my brother was absolutely convinced that additional lighting was used. I said I didn't think so, because that would be power intensive and it would've been a real drain on other critical resources. Then I pointed out that the rocks and sandy soil under the lunar lander were completely undisturbed. He immediately came up with the lack of an atmosphere combined with a low-throttle engine touchdown to justify this. I'm like, "but it's a friggin' 10,000 pound thrust engine!" He wouldn't budge. I can't describe it, but the whole thing just looked fake because of the weird lighting, ghost-like images and powdery surface.
Then I asked, "so what are they using to communicate with Mission Control? Shouldn't there at least be some kind of a large directional dish for their 244,000-mile communications?' They didn't exactly have DirectTV pizza dishes in 1969. I also wondered how they landed on the moon in the daytime with purported 250-degree heat, what kind of auxillary power system was used to cool the LM and what kind of battery power was being used for all this communication and cooling equipment. Also, why was the lunar footage extremely crappy and degraded B&W imagery while the orbital docking shot looked like a 70 mm color sequence from '2001: A Space Odyssey'? I also thought the lunar liftoff looked downright fake, starting with Armstrong's "3, 2, 1, start engines" and then cutting to the LM several hundred feet in the air. Why couldn't we see the entire liftoff? My brother's responses all reminded me very much of Barls. It was this willing suspension of disbelief, refusal to view anything with a critical eye, even when warranted, too-quick explanations and general annoyance that anyone would even question this historical moment. But after seeing it a second time, I felt there was a lot to question.
Then my brother pulled a real Barls on me, heading to his computer and going minutiae tech. Next thing you know, I was hundreds of pages deep in Apollo 11 technical manuals and schematics, which BTW are not nearly as explanatory as you'd think. I never found anything about the exact number or capacity of batteries aboard. I did see a drawing of what they said was an optional external communications dish, which was never deployed on the first mission. Hell, it didn't look like that LM was big enough for two astronauts and the dish. No cooling, power or battery checks were relayed to the astronauts by Houston during the entire two and a half hours. Actually, very little was said about their space suit conditions or oxygen levels, except for occasional elapsed time and time remainings. Barls claims that radioactive dosimeters were worn, but nothing like that was mentioned the entire time.
What I really noticed were some of the comments made by one of the NASA commentators. At times, it were almost flippant or mocking. Off-the-wall stuff like "just looking at that landscape, you'd think the whole thing was being filmed in a western desert." Another line I remember was, "you're almost expecting a security jeep to come bounding over one of those distant hills." The other guy never said a word in response. They seemed like slightly odd and inappropriate comments.
OK, I know Barls will probably dissect, slice and dice me line-by-line, so have at it. Those were just my impressions after being fortunate enough to see the entire 3-hour Apollo 11 moon walk from beginning to end, but with a slightly different perspective.
Disclaimer: This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality
or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every
effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually
review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.
The content of post
on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in
no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of
the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or
administration of GodlikeProductions.
This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.
