Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 226 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 5 of 16 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15 16 >
Topic Options
#10590 - 01/01/06 03:23 PM Re: fake moon landing
bradp Offline
Member

Registered: 12/20/05
Posts: 82
Loc: Spain
1998 NASA send the Luna prospector to map the moon. I have a great Idea lets go to the moon.. ok..we will need a map. No we can do that in 36 years lets just go there. mmmmm The Binder thing worries me more.

Top
.
#10591 - 01/02/06 07:07 PM Re: fake moon landing
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
What you should be worrying about is your mental health.

Things of consequence are happening on this planet and you are spending your time and energy worrying about an inanity.

But hey ... what's wrong with a distraction from reality that doesn't involve illegal drugs. Who cares if the planet is getting warmer, if torture is being committed, if crony kleptocracy is the order of the day ... when you can "worry" about mapping the moon.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10592 - 01/03/06 12:17 AM Re: fake moon landing
adrian Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/31/05
Posts: 2
Loc: romania
Mr Morgan, I notice a common theme of your posts is to question peoples sanity. It is not healthy to state that people that do no agree with you are deranged, in fact people will assume the reverse to be true.

As Shakespeare once said " methinks he does protest too much".

You mention illegal drugs also, I do not think you should experiment with them until the doctors have exhausted all legal therapies for your paranoia.

Top
#10593 - 01/03/06 05:55 AM Re: fake moon landing
A Lurker Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/29/05
Posts: 21
Loc: Florida
Adrian:
"I have reservations when I see blue sky in the command module window two days into the flight. This is not an acceptable circumstance and has yet to be excused."

Post that picture or a link. I'm sure I can explain what you see in that picture.

I am trying hard, very hard, here to NOT speak my mind (maybe even be rude) to ignorant people. So far I think I'm holding up. But if you (you meaning ALL you people who have a "hard time" believing the moon landings) cannot show something that I cannot explain about the landings, and I mean the PHYSICAL LANDINGS here, not any other nebulous "theories" around the NASA organization.

If you (you, meaning anyone who don't believe the landings took place) don't back up any BS you mention about any hoax, then shut up and post your idiotic rants elswere.

Yo see... I'm loosing my calm already.

Top
#10594 - 01/03/06 06:04 AM Re: fake moon landing
Anonymous
Unregistered


I've already lost my patience, that's why I'm refraining from posting.

"Amaranth"

Top
#10595 - 01/03/06 06:27 AM Re: fake moon landing
A Lurker Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/29/05
Posts: 21
Loc: Florida
I guess that's a good idea Amaranth, maybe I'll do the same.

Top
#10596 - 01/03/06 05:26 PM Re: fake moon landing
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Adrian: I would agree with you if it were merely a question of disagreeing about interpretation of facts.

But the disagreement here is quite different. We are having a discussion in which one side is pointing to verifiable peer reviewed observation d the other is casting about somewhere between pure fantasy (they know it to be untrue) and psychosis (they can not discern the difference between reality and fantasy).

This isn't about which tooth paste makes your teeth whiter and brighter. It is about whether 2+2 equals 4: And it does!
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#32765 - 11/30/09 01:45 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Need to link this to the "anti-knowledge" thread.

Three words: "Laser Ranging Station"


Edited by TheFallibleFiend (11/30/09 01:53 PM)

Top
#32767 - 11/30/09 04:03 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...


"... all of the hoax evidence go away."

True. The "hoax evidence" can't possibly "go away." To "go away" it must first be present.

Top
#32770 - 11/30/09 05:00 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

I understand how this works. This forum is a magnet for crank science. Cranks are relentless time-wasters. I present evidence, you claim it is refuted based on some bit of nonsense. It's like arguing calculus is someone who has never heard of the fundamental theorems.

I'm not going to cover every stupid thing you put up. I have no interest in wasting time debating cranks. I will mention the first thing on your list - the moving jacket argument is silly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbJvgqoeFSU

... only because it's not inconvenient to do so.

Top
#32772 - 11/30/09 05:47 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Assertions are not facts. The video is not "proof." It's evidence. Just because you say that the reconstruction in the video is bogus does not make it so.

Regarding your comment about helmet size relative to the flag, it is irrelevant till to you show the math, based on field of view. The question is "how close was the astronaut to the flag?"

We have all sorts of evidence - not proof, but evidence - that men walked on the moon. The entire case of the moon-hoaxers rests on disputing that evidence. They do so with assertion and with misrepresentation of science.

It does make me wonder (just a little) whether any of the hoaxers has any significant training in science.

Top
#32774 - 11/30/09 07:44 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
I'm not sure what he's doing there. It looks like he's either exercising or performing some kind of test. He's wearing the jacket. His torso is actively moving and jerking the jacket. There is some kind of apparatus (tube) also attached to the jacket that is being propelled by his chest. His chest is bumping the apparatus is moving and jerking the jacket as well.

It's not clear how much of this motion is due to the effect of gravitation on the suit.

Top
#32778 - 12/01/09 02:09 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
The side-comment on that video referred to the command module being about 120K from Earth. If you do the math, the effect from gravity should be about 1/900th that on Earth. We aren't given the margin of error on that is, so let's say anywhere from 1/800th to 1/1000th. That doesn't sound like "microgravity," to so much as milli-gravity.

I understand that you are suspicious and it doesn't seem right to you. Two questions:

1. Have you asked a physicist or aeronautical engineer about this?

2. Have you tried to derive equations or build a simulation of some kind? You would need a bit more information than what is in the video, I think, though most of it is probably available online. (For example, you need to know if they were coasting or accelerating at that point.)

Top
#32788 - 12/02/09 07:05 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

"You sound like you know a few things."
Thanks. I do know a few things, but I'm not an expert in this area.

"Just tell us what you think causes the behavior of the jacket corner and the dogtags."
I didn't see the dog tags. I watched the jacket corner over and over and over and I think it's largely caused largely by the motion of its wearer, but also affected by some kind of acceleration - possibly, but not necessarily, Earth's gravity.

I'm not sure what kind of behavior to experience in space. Orbiting stations are in free fall (orbiting is falling). So you can get zero-g effects just because you're not in space. Still, it's not my area. I appreciate the fact that you did an personal experiment. Would prefer to see an actual analysis.

Top
#32809 - 12/03/09 06:00 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"The corners of this astronaut's jacket seem to be in a very different environment.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4 "

That's correct. The space station is actually in orbit (free fall). We expect zero-g there, even though it's (much) closer to Earth! Apparently, the STS was also orbiting when that video was taken.


"I can't identify any force other than gravity that would make it go back down."

Look at first paragraph at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle


The implication is that locally, gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration. That is, if the vehicle is accelerating, it will be indistinguishable from gravitation.


Fake moon landing guy demonstrates Galileo's principle of equivalence:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/image/featherdrop_sound.mov




Edited by TheFallibleFiend (12/03/09 07:20 PM)

Top
#32823 - 12/04/09 01:22 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Originally Posted By: FatFreddy

So you are saying that the behavior of the jacket corner is not that of zero-G, is that right?



I'm saying,
1) I don't know for sure, but
2) Yes, it's not what I would expect from zero-g.

Top
#32837 - 12/06/09 06:32 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

If the thing was 120K from Earth (half way to moon as the annotation says), then there was no zero-G to be consistent with.

As I said, I think the gravity is about 1/900th (approximately). The calculation is trivial.

As the acceleration (due to gravity) would be much less, I wouldn't expect it to move like that. Therefore I postulated that the module was accelerating at that point.

The idea that the jacket is connected to something could explain the movement. I don't see anything string, but there could be. I'm not sure how a connection in the back could affect movement in the ftont.

let me be clear:
I think you're wrong to expect it to behave as zero-g.
I also think these other guys are wrong to say that it is at zero-g. Regardless of whether the ship itself is accelerating, it shouldn't be at zero-g.

OTOH, I'm not sure I buy the other explanations either. I considered the idea of fabric memory, but it doesn't seem likely to me. (Again, not an expert.)

I don't understand the last explanation.

It would be interesting to see a model of this (but I don't have time to do it myself). It might be interesting to just do a simple model of gravity with two particles, one with g=9.81 m/s^2 and the other with .00981 m/s^2. (Maybe there's a web that demonstrates the difference.)

I still think the most likely explanation is the one I gave. That's the one that seems most reasonable to me. The others are possible, but the don't seem likely. However, I would be happy to defer to an actual physicist.

However, I don't consider this as evidence of a faked moon trip.

Top
#32846 - 12/07/09 01:59 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

"I made it very clear that I understood that."
It didn't seem too clear to me since you kept comparing it to observations in an orbiting space station.

"Disinfo" agents? You mean the government is paying them off to spread the disinformation? Or are they doing it because they otherwise stand to benefit?

SpreadingTheMuse doesn't claim to be a teacher on YT, but a former instructor (which is not necessarily a professor). Teachers (to include professors) are not infallible. Nobody says they are - even if he's wrong (and I don't know that he is), it's not an argument he's lying. Frankly, I'm not willing to dismiss his answer. (Though I would still like to see a model of the behavior.)

I'm not going through all these videos. I'm not that interested in this.

In the last video played at double speed, things don't look normal to me. When the astronaut jumps he does not accelerate back to Earth in a normal way.

Top
#32849 - 12/07/09 05:23 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...


You wrote:

"When the speed of the Apollo 11 astronauts is doubled, their movements look exactly like they would look on earth. Take a look at the 30:40 time mark of this video."

and you provided this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455110982587487066#

Actually, no, it doesn't look exactly like it would look on Earth - at least it doesn't look exactly like what I would expect.

Top
#32863 - 12/08/09 06:31 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

The thing starts off with a few videos, each an hour long, that I don't have time to watch.

I've addressed three of your points so far:

1. The flag moving as the astronaut walks past.

2. The moving jacket.

3. The speed up of the film.

I've explained in each case why I don't think any of these is sufficient evidence - or, in fact, any evidence at all.


I have already spent far more time on this subject than it's worth. I'm not watching the damn videos from a woman who isn't even a scientist who is apparently not even talking about the moon landings.

Top
Page 5 of 16 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15 16 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.