LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 11-29-2016, 07:54 PM   #46
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896

Enorbet, "it's a great big fusion reactor out there." The energy that exists in the Van Allen Belts was not produced by those belts, but instead is merely captured by them ... and let the record show that they never seem to run out of juice. Therefore, when I consider that people were supposedly standing on the (radioactive!) surface of the Moon, nakedly exposed to anything and everything that El Sol might pour at them while wearing nothing more than a cloth suit ... nope! My "B0Z0 bit" has officially been flipped, and it simply isn't going to go the other way.

While I earnestly want these enormous problems to be solved, I flatly do not believe and will not believe that they were solved in 1969 and in the several years thereafter. (All of which years I, too, personally witnessed.) It is especially important to me that this does not become a (purely political) impediment to future manned space travel beyond Low Earth Orbit.

After all: "If there is any force on Planet Earth that is stronger than the Sun itself, it is: the power of politics in Washington, DC!"

This has indeed been an interesting exchange, but I think that it's time now to draw it to a close. Thank you!

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 11-29-2016 at 07:56 PM.
 
Old 11-30-2016, 08:59 AM   #47
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,425

Rep: Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
Enorbet, "it's a great big fusion reactor out there." The energy that exists in the Van Allen Belts was not produced by those belts, but instead is merely captured by them ... and let the record show that they never seem to run out of juice. Therefore, when I consider that people were supposedly standing on the (radioactive!) surface of the Moon, nakedly exposed to anything and everything that El Sol might pour at them while wearing nothing more than a cloth suit ... nope! My "B0Z0 bit" has officially been flipped, and it simply isn't going to go the other way.

While I earnestly want these enormous problems to be solved, I flatly do not believe and will not believe that they were solved in 1969 and in the several years thereafter. (All of which years I, too, personally witnessed.) It is especially important to me that this does not become a (purely political) impediment to future manned space travel beyond Low Earth Orbit.

After all: "If there is any force on Planet Earth that is stronger than the Sun itself, it is: the power of politics in Washington, DC!"

This has indeed been an interesting exchange, but I think that it's time now to draw it to a close. Thank you!
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I can't end just yet for a few reasons. Firstly, others read this and it's important to me that balance and clarity exists. This is true not only because the Moon Landing was far more important than just fulfilling a largely beloved president's challenge but also because much of the opposition to objective evidence I think is based to some degree in the often well-deserved distrust of Government. Additionally, I find you so learned and eloquent on socio-political history it puzzles and intrigues me to discover so much resistance to evidence in the matter of the Moon Landing in a man so obviously intelligent and educated.

If you have any doubt that you are being resistant to obvious evidence please try to consider the following without prejudice.

Yes it is true that a nuclear furnace exists near our planet and that we are shielded from much of it's deadlier radiation. There is reason for this whether one believes in traditional Creation (God made it that way) or Evolution (We only live here and in the form we are because it is that way). However the Sun has a radius of just over 432,000 miles yet we are 93,000,000 miles away and the output of the Sun's nastiest stuff is by no means constant. We know this from measuring it with increasing accuracy for over 100 years.

The Van Allen belts discovery was only confirmed in 1958 so it has only been monitored and measured for roughly 60 years but we have numerous satellites affected by them so the scrutiny has been intense. They are by no means constant either. In fact a 3rd belt was found to exist for only 1 month since a Solar shock wave destroyed it shortly after the Solar Flare that created it. They are also not evenly distributed being flattened substantially as they near the Poles. That our cell phones and weather satellites continue to work for many years proves electronics can be shielded against not only the normal day-to-day levels but even against the occasional Flares. That NASA's Messenger spent almost a decade in deep space closer to the Sun than the Earth, finally spending over four (4) years in orbit around Mercury which is three (3) times closer to the Sun than the Earth at a distance of only 38,000,000 miles continuing to deliver data back to Earth until it was directed to impact Mercury's surface in 2015 proves that not only can we measure vastly higher levels of radiation but also shield against them with minimal mass.

The space suits circa Skylab and Apollo were not mere "naked cloth" but consisted of eleven (11) layers including aluminized mylar and other materials that mitigated radiation exposure. The amount of radiation that they were all exposed to is NOT only expressed as you seem to believe but are only expressed in a per year basis because the exposure is so low that rems/second is a far less convenient (commonly understandable) number. Comparing to the radiation every human on Earth is exposed per year or during a common chest x-ray is far more meaningful to most, though dviding said numbers to get average exposure per day, per hour, per minute or per second are still possible and remain moderately meaningful. The "moderately" is exactly because of the inconstancy of that radiation.

If you, or anyone else would like to see those figures as well as much other hard data on deep space flight please visit ===>>>

--- Deep Space and Apollo FAQ ---

Now after all that I must again note that you never leave your unfounded concern with radiation, it's measurement and protection, and still have yet to address LRRR, soviet radar tracking (amongst others) modern lunar satellite photos, etc. Finally I must ask you and any other Apollo Deniers the most obvious question. After nearly 60 years of constantly progressing technology do you not imagine that anyone, let alone heavily invested Russia or China, who could come up with some solid evidence to solidly refute "The Hoax" if they could? They too, know the radiation levels for example and would certainly publish any such data to contradict NASA since to my knowledge they have never sent a lifeform of any kind through the Van Allen belts, let alone to the Moon.... only probes, and are therefore much less harmed by any such assertion and would experience a net gain.

Finally and more on topic is it not wonderful what can be accomplished even with relatively primitive tools? For a time I restored antique furniture and Art and often stood slack-jawed in awe of the precision and beauty of the work done with hand tools and not even modern sandpaper to work with. The videos in OPs links of the fabrication and longevity of rope memory is equally impressive. Likewise those that conclude the Pyramids of Giza and elsewhere must have been constructed by magic or aliens, refuse to realize the expertise that can be attained when many generations "get by" with nothing but stone to work with (or balsa rafts, primitive ships smaller than modern yachts, etc.) In my estimation, they also miss out on an important celebration of the Human Spirit.
 
Old 11-30-2016, 12:40 PM   #48
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896
Enorbet, "enough already." We've thrashed this thing to death. Can't we switch to talking about Faith & Religion?

NASA spent over $60 billion dollars on their movie. They are n-e-v-e-r going to say anything other than that we played golf on the moon ... that we even sent a mission during one of the largest solar maximums ever recorded ... that not a single astronaut suffered the effects of radiation.

I'd like to see them take those same 1960's miracle suits and just go in there right now and repair the damage at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. They should be easily up to the task. A few layers of aluminum and plastic and surely they must be good to go. After all, they spent many days standing directly in the sun, on a place where a shadow is instantly 400F colder than the light. I don't quite know what those golf balls, or for that matter those American flags, were made of, that they did not fairly-instantly melt. They stood on a radioactive planetoid, in full face of the solar wind, and played golf. They stood in shadow, but they made sure that you could still read two words in that shadow: "UNITED STATES." Strangely lit.

Oh yes, and they had cameras strapped to their space suits. No viewfinder. No way to aim the thing. But, hundreds of photographs, beautifully framed. No sign of radiation fogging the film. (And, none of the "countless stars" that Hubble saw ... or that, for that matter, we see.)

But there's an easy way to put all doubters to rest: just do it one more time, exactly the way we did it then. We should just grab a rocket, grab a 1960's space suit, hand these people portable phones so they can check-in to Facebook, and send 'em off. All of the technical problems were solved in 1969-1972, and the easiest way to prove it is to do exactly what we did ... this time on the Internet. For all the world to see. We know it takes eight days, we've done it all before. So, let's go. Again. We don't need to re-invent the technology, because it worked flawlessly almost every time. We just need to strap it on top of a Saturn-V rocket. Any volunteers?

In order to absolutely prove our point, we're not going to change anything from the last Apollo mission. That mission, like almost all the others, went off without a hitch, so there's nothing to re-invent here. We just do it again. It might be strange to think that the most sophisticated computer aboard is in your telephone, but we'll provide you with lots of batteries for it.

Look ... there's nothing to worry about. We know that you'll be fine. And NASA will silence all critics when our astronauts, standing outside their lunar module, "tweet" and "check in." We silence all talk about Van Allen Belts as we sail right through them once again, twice, waving at the camera and chatting excitedly with millions of Internet viewers back home. Why are we spending money to send "probes" to the Moon, when we've already played golf there? We know that there must be nothing for those probes to discover. We know that our plastic and aluminum-foil suit will keep you safe and even comfortable. Why, it should be a piece of cake.

Any volunteers?

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 11-30-2016 at 12:52 PM.
 
Old 11-30-2016, 04:41 PM   #49
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896
Oh, pardon me, Enorbet, but I just stumbled-upon this:

Only a Paper Moon.

... in which (around 20:00), the narrator grapples with a very practical question: "could these astronauts, in their known-to-be actual space suits, equipped with their known-to-be actual cameras and so forth ... actually have had enough room to get in-and-out of that tiny landing-craft, with their space suits on?"

Given that we have actual examples, in museums and so forth, and we can buy measuring-tapes at any hardware store ...

... and shall we then talk about how exactly they wedged that dune buggy into the LEM?

It would certainly seem that we are running out of square inches. (And in a way that a government contractor might never have thought of, as he cashed his $X-billion dollar government check.)

"Hey! I was paid to design the landing craft! I had nothing to do with the space suits!"

Great fun. Have a watch.

- - -

Oh yeah, and there's that pesky rocket engine, the producer of "10,000 pounds of thrust," merely inches away from them (as you can still very plainly see in national museums ...) which, quite remarkably, made no sound at all(!) while the astronauts descended to the Moon.

Yessirree, Neil Armstrong said that we had just turned the engines off, having just now successfully landed on the Moon, and there is absolutely n-o difference in the sound-track. Even though the rocket-engines that propelled our rocket from Earth, just a few days ago, made "a cacophonous roar," the engine that let us kiss-down on the Moon made ... no sound whatsoever."

- - -

And, oh yeah, the lunar dune-buggy ... kicking up clouds of dust ... dust that behaved exactly like "clouds of dust" would behave on earth, not in an atmosphere-free environment with one-sixth gravity. We see waves of kicked-up dust ... not(!) rising "six times higher in the air than they would have done on earth," and not(!) "proceeding in an unobstructed path," as they most-surely would have done in the absence of any measurable atmosphere. (Instead, they created quite-visible "waves." Just as things do on the surface of our atmosphere-infested planet.)

- - -

"In the exhibit at the National Air & Space Museum, the hatch was so-many inches wide and had these rivets, whereas in the official "from space" photographs . . .

- - -

"And, yes, 'we answered President Nixon, right on time.'" Yes, within split-seconds. What are you talking about ... "a two-second delay?!" Harumph ...

- - -

In the end, there simply would have been too many "technical details" for an earth-bound filmmaker to deal with. S/He would have had to rely upon earthling's "suspension of disbelief." Simply because they wanted to believe what they saw ... and because it would never have occurred to them not to do so ... that is precisely what they did.

- - -

"Oops." When a lie is confronted with skeptical scrutiny, it just doesn't turn out too well. The slightest detail, so-easily overlooked at the time, can utterly overturn it. Even by a few square inches. Even by which way a hatch moves, or exactly where on its circumference it is attached.

But that is not good enough for any future r-e-a-l space explorers. These human beings will have to survive ... and prosper ... in a-c-t-u-a-l conditions. And, if I may politely say, "the illusions of our American Hubris past" could, instead ... kill them.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 11-30-2016 at 06:24 PM.
 
Old 11-30-2016, 09:02 PM   #50
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 3,163

Rep: Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
Yessirree, Neil Armstrong said that we had just turned the engines off, having just now successfully landed on the Moon, and there is absolutely n-o difference in the sound-track. Even though the rocket-engines that propelled our rocket from Earth, just a few days ago, made "a cacophonous roar," the engine that let us kiss-down on the Moon made ... no sound whatsoever."
Um, you know that "sound" is composed of vibrations in the atmosphere?
 
Old 11-30-2016, 09:28 PM   #51
frankbell
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Debian, Mageia, and whatever VMs I happen to be playing with
Posts: 12,482
Blog Entries: 16

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 3206Reputation: 3206Reputation: 3206Reputation: 3206Reputation: 3206Reputation: 3206Reputation: 3206Reputation: 3206Reputation: 3206Reputation: 3206Reputation: 3206
Give it up, guys.

There is no arguing with a conspiracy theory. Every argument will be met by a bigger and better conspiracy.
 
Old 12-01-2016, 08:10 AM   #52
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896
Enorbet: Yes ... the atmosphere within the lunar lander. And the massive vibrations of a 10,000-pound-thrust rocket engine just inches from your feet, which will be conveyed by contact directly to you and to the atmosphere within your suit if it is already sealed.

Frank: I love the word, "conspiracy theory." Particularly the way that this word has been made into a pejorative rubric, which is supposed to be dismissed as "presumptively false," and whose holders are supposed to be ridiculed. All because it goes against the official, accepted mythos story. Personally, when a "conspiracy theory" comes out, I pay very close attention to it, because it means that somebody is thinking different.

I know exactly where I was standing when I [innocently thought that I ...] watched Neil Armstrong step onto the moon. I myself took a ceremonious one-step down from the stairway that I was standing on, watching our black-and-white TV. But, even then, my little-kid self wondered about what I was seeing. Being already a ravenous reader of our family's World Book Encyclopedia, I knew that radio signals take about two seconds to travel to the moon ... but there seemed to be no delay in the conversations between the astronauts and Mission Control. I heard them say, "kicking up a little dust here," but on our grainy TV (we were a long way from the transmitter and had a pretty funky antenna on our roof ...) the dust beneath the spacecraft seemed undisturbed. Certainly not blown away (like the brief blasts of dust that could briefly be seen from out the window.) In fact there seemed to be a pockmark directly underneath the thing. I noticed that the spacecraft was spotless. I also noticed that the spacecraft had come in at a fairly substantial lateral speed, even as it was dropping like a stone, and that when it landed, with no blinding swirls of dust outside that window, the astronauts simply turned the engine off (and the view outside did not change). They landed without a bounce or a slide or a tilt, nor any comment beyond "contact light." They were just ... there. Perfectly level. Nowhere around the craft was any path that might have been left by that descending rocket blast (which had thrown up those streaks of dust that we saw, didn't it?). "How strange," I thought. "How very strange. Just like that."

And this is what this little kid was thinking, at the time, in 1969. All on his own, but smart enough to keep his mouth shut. Because, these were still the days when gas cost 30, you routinely said "fill it up with high test," the gas contained lead, the attendant wore a uniform as he popped the hood and checked the oil and likely-as-not added a quart (cars burned about as much oil as gas back then), and you got another set of drinking glasses given to you and your mom joked that we had no place to put them. If "Uncle Walter" said it, that's the way it was.

Would that make me "the world's youngest conspiracy theorist?" Or wouldn't it simply make me a wonderer? You can be assured that I never said anything against the euphoria of the time.

I "wondered" precisely the same thing on 9/11/2001, when I watched in disbelief as two buildings dropped straight down, into their own footprint, ostensibly due to no more reason than jet fuel. No matter how ostentatious that event had been, I fully realized that it could not possibly have been caused by a planeload of kerosene, and that it could not have started "way up there." I expected there to be an investigation. There was none: there was only an explanation. A "lone bullet" story. I was not aware until a few days later that a third building had "dropped," and when I saw the tape of it, I knew. When the official guide to the events made no allowance for the fact that Building 7 had dropped in exactly the same way that, say, the Stardust Hotel went down in Vegas ... I knew. And I expected the Federal Government to overturn heaven and hell to get to the truth, and to share that truth with the people. I never expected them to, instead, share lies. But I watched them do just that. And, I knew.

How on earth did they know, by noon that day, that "Al Quaeda did it?" Do the wheels of information really turn that fast, and if they do turn that fast, why couldn't they have prevented the whole thing? And if they somehow did know, why wasn't there a declaration of war that afternoon, as there had been in December 1941? This certainly was "a(nother) Day That Will Live In Infamy." I fully expected to get a draft notice. Nothing happened, except an undeclared war that's still going on, and no one shows a single big planeload of coffins arriving at Andrews. It's just not a news story, even though it happens almost every day. What price are we willing to pay to get Dick Cheney his beloved pipeline? And, when are we going to resign ourselves to the fact that we're not going to get it, no matter how many soldiers we spend?

I was far too young to remember JFK, but I knew intuitively that he'd been driven into a sniper's nest. Sitting there in the school library, reading a book about the event, I looked at the map of Daily Plaza and I knew that "the shots that counted" could not have come from Oswald's position. That it would be a perfectly ridiculous place to "hunt" from, and the pictures plainly showed that Kennedy had been hurled bodily backwards into his seat by a tremendous impact, preceded slightly by the now-detached top of his skull. (I'd seen varmints do the same thing when I shot 'em with a little ol' .22. When you live in the country, you have varmints, and you shoot 'em to save your vegetables. You get good at it. Although I never actually took off a 'coon's skull-top.) Once again, little old me in a little old library, I knew, without anyone else to tell me. It didn't surprise me to later learn that others had their suspicions, too.

Well, go ahead and call me a "conspiracy theorist" and I'll wear that moniker proudly. When I see something, I think about it. Skeptically. I don't think such thoughts because other people do. I think them because I do.

A $60-billion dollar movie isn't good enough for me. I want to see JFK's dream fulfilled, no matter how long it actually takes. I want to see us go beyond low earth orbit. And, I want it to be real. And, to that end, the most-disastrous thing that we could do is to keep pretending: to refuse to do everything that we must do to protect our astronauts, in order to preserve the fiction that what we [said we] did in 1969-1972 was adequate. Deep space gives no quarter. It will kill you (literally) in a flash. The power that lights the Northern Lights ... that generates thousands of times more electricity than the output of every human power-plant combined, and that produces a display that never completely stops ... can boil your skin from your body. El Sol is a hydrogen bomb.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-01-2016 at 08:43 AM.
 
Old 12-01-2016, 11:13 AM   #53
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 3,163

Rep: Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
Enorbet: Yes ... the atmosphere within the lunar lander. And the massive vibrations of a 10,000-pound-thrust rocket engine just inches from your feet, which will be conveyed by contact directly to you and to the atmosphere within your suit if it is already sealed.
That was me actually, not Enorbet. So anyway, the question is if enough of the vibration from the engine would be transmitted through the structure of the lander to be picked up on the microphone. A quick lookup of moon-landing hoax rebuttals shows that NASA says that the insulation in the lander would block most of the sound. I don't want to make an argument from authority, but you haven't provided any numbers, so there's nothing else to go on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
Yessirree,Even though the rocket-engines that propelled our rocket from Earth, just a few days ago, made "a cacophonous roar," the engine that let us kiss-down on the Moon made ... no sound whatsoever."
Speaking of numbers, the rockets used for liftoff from Earth "provided over 7,600,000 pounds-force", i.e., 70 times more powerful than the engine for the moon lander. 10,000 pounds of thrust is comparable to an airplane's jet engine: "Today's jet engines commonly develop 9,900 pounds of thrust or more."


Quote:
But, even then, my little-kid self wondered about what I was seeing. [...]"How strange," I thought. "How very strange. Just like that."
Reality Is Unrealistic
Warning: TVTropes link
 
Old 12-01-2016, 11:41 AM   #54
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896
Oops, sorry about that.

In any case, I am quite sure that a rocket engine would not be "soundless," and that a dust-free, trail-free landing would occur without so much as a bounce, resulting in a spotless spacecraft standing perfectly straight up atop a pockmark in the undisturbed soil. (Especially when it had been "kicking up dust.")

The list of inconsistencies goes on forever, if you look at them with a skeptical eye. If instead you look at them from an apologist's viewpoint, convinced in advance that everything NASA told you must be true (if only because NASA was the one that told you), then you will either see none of them, or accept the excuses given.

Anyone, and everyone, is free to follow their own predilections ... and, to respect the viewpoints of others.

As for me, I am impatient and intolerant of it all, because I want space exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit to actually take place. Safely. To achieve that, I think we're going to have to have anti-gravity spacecraft, i.e. "flying saucers." If Nicola Tesla's seminal thoughts on high-frequency electricity were correct (and, declassified), and such a crazy spark-plug could be made safe, then this is probably the only chance that we have of constructing such a thing. Vast amounts of dangerous research would need to be done, but I think that we need that technology. I don't think that "Roman Candles" will ever get us where we need to go, and we can't keep returning to Earth like a comet . . .

But, I digress. "I want to see it, and I want it to be real." I want to see us "slip the surly bonds of Earth," verifiably and undeniably. To go to the Moon. To Mars. Beyond. To discover ways to solve the radiation problem, and every other problem that now stands in our way. But, to do that, we must divest ourselves of any pretense that we have already, blissfully, solved them. Until we are willing to do this, then this is the number-one obstacle that stands in our way: most dangerous because it involves human pride (and government hubris).

I disagree with NASA's official decision, made in those days, but I especially disagree with their steadfast refusal to come clean. In doing so, they're just digging themselves in deeper, and this, I fear, could one day kill real astronauts. I want our future space-travel plans to be based on the most-accurate, true information, but I don't trust that NASA would actually "give up Apollo" to do that.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-01-2016 at 11:52 AM.
 
Old 12-01-2016, 10:57 PM   #55
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 3,163

Rep: Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
The list of inconsistencies goes on forever, if you look at them with a skeptical eye. If instead you look at them from an apologist's viewpoint, convinced in advance that everything NASA told you must be true (if only because NASA was the one that told you), then you will either see none of them, or accept the excuses given.
I agree. That's exactly how confirmation bias works.


Quote:
To achieve that, I think we're going to have to have anti-gravity spacecraft, i.e. "flying saucers." If Nicola Tesla's seminal thoughts on high-frequency electricity were correct (and, declassified), and such a crazy spark-plug could be made safe, then this is probably the only chance that we have of constructing such a thing. Vast amounts of dangerous research would need to be done, but I think that we need that technology. I don't think that
"Roman Candles" will ever get us where we need to go, and we can't keep returning to Earth like a comet . . .
So, hypothetically, if there were a Moon mission today that didn't use a "flying saucer" would you assume it's faked as well?
 
Old 12-02-2016, 12:16 PM   #56
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,425

Rep: Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335
You're obviously absolutely right, frankbell, since I and others have provided links not only of official scientific evidence from all around the world but also numerous unaffiliated 3rd party sources. Shoot! Much of sundalsvcs's assertions were debunked by the Mythbusters TV show. Many others are apparently from a completely mistaken "understanding" of Physics such as the nature of heat and sound transfer. Additionally there are 2 plants at 3 Mile Island with one licensed to operate until 2034 and the original site where the accident occurred was such a disaster, especially in PR, that it is now entirely safe to walk around in shorts, T-shirt and flip-flops...well, except in winter when frostbite might be a concern, since on Earth unlike the atmosphere-less Moon, heat travels by convection by air and is not limited to radiation and conduction.

So for anyone else following this thread here's a repeat of 3rd party Evidence now including the Mythbusters.

--- Wikipedia - 3rd Party Evidence of Apollo ---

-- Mythbusters Full Show - Moon Landing Hoax ---

Last edited by enorbet; 12-02-2016 at 12:20 PM.
 
Old 12-02-2016, 07:42 PM   #57
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896
As I have said, very powerful social forces are arrayed against those who are ... and, who choose to remain ... skeptical of "official truths." They are called, "conspiracy theorists." Their thoughts are "debunked," by "Mythbusters," and so on. One is openly encouraged to dismiss these people, along with their obviously so-misguided thoughts, or at least to shake your head at their ignorance.

When you choose to be skeptical, that comes with the territory. You get used to it.

I am, in fact, keenly aware of the various sources of which you speak, I have watched the episodes and so on. You may be assured that I would be delighted to be proved utterly wrong! But, it hasn't happened yet. Not to my satisfaction. I am anything but "uninformed." I simply draw different ... very careful, but different ... conclusions based on all of what I see.

As I have said, I choose not to be "an apologist for" the Official Story.™ I don't start by taking for granted that such a thing is, in fact, Truth. I look only at what I see, and feel no obligation to accept anything that I consider to be "a convoluted line of reasoning in support of the Official Story.™" Instead, "the Official Story™," itself, must prove itself ... to me.

Why? Because I'm a skeptic! Yes, I can do that! No, you don't have to agree with me, and no, you don't need to save me from myself.

And this is precisely why I fear for our future astronauts who finally dare to venture beyond Low Earth Orbit. I fear that NASA's thinking will be shaped by "It was good enough for Neil Armstrong (and everybody else), so there!" They'll hold a military funeral here on Earth, of course. But that's not an acceptable thought to me. I want to see mankind, yet within my lifetime, truly(!) overcome all of the obstacles that stand between us ... first, between us and Luna, then between us an Mars (etc.) ... and be there.

This is also why I think that it's crucial that we "stop clinging to a 1960's movie," no matter what the short-term political cost. There are Moons, Planets, and Stars out there, albeit with prodigious obstacles presently in the way. I want us to go there. Truly.

Okay, okay, enough of that.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-02-2016 at 07:58 PM.
 
Old 12-03-2016, 12:51 AM   #58
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,425

Rep: Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335
It's not skepticism once you have reached not only a conclusion but an intractable conclusion. It's intractable when one deflects evidence on policy and reverts to the same old assumptions. The first rule of Logic is "Check your premises".

PS: Movie? Apparently you didn't bother to watch Mythbusters since it gave substantial evidence that it is impossible to recreate the environmental physics of motion in Earth Gravity. The only way they were able to do it was on the Vomit Comet, hardly amenable to even the shortest of clips, let alone large enough to drive in. The Moon Rover would fold up and fit nicely attached to the fuselage and possibly even inside but no way could the driving clips occur. None.

Incidentally deniers might look up The Parkes Observatory in Australia which provided telemetry for Apollo and saved the day when they were the first to confirm Apollo had successfully returned from communication blackout when circling the Moon. It has also provided such service for

Mariner 2
Mariner 4
Voyager
Giotto
Galileo
Cassini-Huygens

which are orders of magnitude further away than the Moon and obviously a few were very much closer to our "Fusion Reactor"

Last edited by enorbet; 12-03-2016 at 01:00 AM.
 
Old 12-04-2016, 10:04 AM   #59
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896
I am a skeptic and I draw my own conclusions ... as anyone can, and as everyone is equally entitled to do. That doesn't mean that I have my head up my "*"!

Remember, also, that "it's all or nothing." For instance, thousands of public-domain pictures (far too many, by the way ...) were taken on the various missions. If there is even o-n-e inconsistency to be found on a-n-y of these photographs, then this immediately invalidates the premise that "these photos were taken on the Moon," since the astronauts could not have been at two places at one time. [i](And, oh by the way, the size of the Earth in "that famous photograph" ... is wrong, too. Oops.)

Today, we have plenty of simulation and re-creation technologies, thanks to the very powerful computers that today everyone has, which allow us to ... for example, calculate whether the Lunar Rover would have fallen over (yes),or skidded on turns (yes), and exactly what its plume of dust would have looked like on Earth. We also don't need a "vomit comet," as you say, to calculate how an astronaut would walk on the moon in actual lunar gravity. We can create a CG reconstruction of "iconic photographs," based on information up to and including the actual sun and earth positions (and light levels) at that place on the moon at that time. The list goes on.

And, guess what: those star-less "1970's special effects" shots don't hold up to such scrutiny. Remember ... it only takes one, any one among many thousands.

(No, Nvidia didn't prove anything, except that there was an illuminated light source off-camera, which we know already. Although they shaded some panels on the orbiter darker than other photos show that they were ... and as you can see for yourself at the Smithsonian.)

Just one inconsistency. One "converging shadow line," for example, will do very nicely.

When we want to believe that the official stories are true, then that's precisely what we will do. "It's hard to fool people, but much harder yet to make them admit that they've been fooled." Having spent over $60 billion dollars on Apollo, at a time when the US was still on the Gold Standard, NASA is never going to willingly admit to anything, no matter how much evidence piles up. Somehow, every single detractor must be wrong. Because, "that's our story and we're sticking to it."

But that's all it is: a story. Let's try a mission, shall we?

Therefore, I'll repeat my "Apollo Challenge." We still have, in museums and so forth, actual lunar modules and command modules, actual Saturn V Rockets, actual space suits, and of course, the technical data and even the launch pads. Therefore, before April 1, 2017, we should be able to get everything out of storage, rig it back up, put actual astronauts in it (complete with live Facebook feeds), and send them right "back" there ... to re-create the Apollo 11 mission in its entirety including landing within 500 feet of Tranquility Base. Then, fly home. Do all of this using 1969 technology, "just like last time." (You are not allowed to change anything based on more-current knowledge and so on.) No preparation is needed, no "probes," no advance satellites, no nothing, because we already have everything.

"Just do it, one more time." This time for all the world to see. Prove all of your detractors wrong as our noble astronauts make excited posts from the middle of the Van Allen belts. As they delicately touch down on the moon, play golf, and take off again. We'll be watching. (And remember: "there must be no stars.") No new equipment need be built because we're going to use exactly what they had, all of which is already on-hand. I'm sure that the National Air & Space Museum won't mind a chance to make history one more time by "loaning" or perhaps giving-up a few exhibits.

Basically, "NASA, 'put up or shut up.'" If it was so easy to do in 1969-1972 that you did it multiple times, then this should be a piece of cake. And, today, it will be possible for thousands of amateur and professional observers to confirm it. For example, give them a laser-pointer and tell them to point it at Earth and wave it around. The laser beam will be detectable at an arbitrary distance. Your detractors will be forever silenced, because you will go out of your way to enable them to objectively observe, as we can do today but not then.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-04-2016 at 10:10 AM.
 
Old 12-04-2016, 10:26 AM   #60
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 3,163

Rep: Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
Today, we have plenty of simulation and re-creation technologies, thanks to the very powerful computers that today everyone has, which allow us to ... for example, calculate whether the Lunar Rover would have fallen over (yes),or skidded on turns (yes), and exactly what its plume of dust would have looked like on Earth. We also don't need a "vomit comet," as you say, to calculate how an astronaut would walk on the moon in actual lunar gravity.
Do you have any actual calculations you can show? So far I've only seen bald assertions.

(obviously, this wouldn't actually resolve anything anyway, as the disagreement would just shift to the assumptions embodied in the calculations. But at least there would be something of substance).
 
  


Reply

Tags
apollo, conspiracy_theory, lander_denial, moonlanding


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
apollo dependency prob ALInux Linux - Software 4 08-22-2005 09:38 AM
Problem with Apollo and Gnutella corey-ross Linux - Software 1 01-25-2005 10:18 AM
CUPS, hpijs, and an Apollo P-2200 goofyheadedpunk Linux - Software 5 07-17-2004 03:55 PM
Apollo printer crash crashmeister Linux - Hardware 0 10-30-2003 03:55 AM
Apollo problems... JapanFred Linux - Software 2 06-10-2003 02:00 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration