STS60 – The USSR obviously used the wrong kind of feathers. LOL

BTW – the link to the AGC info is:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi.../compessay.htm


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-06-04 10:52 ]</font>

One more thing on the programming of the AGC – with all of the “bloatware” being used today and the power of most PC’s - the average person never thinks about writing tight code. I’d bet the developers of today’s satellites still do however, although its probably not as critical as it was back then.

I would imagine if you could go back and look at how the AGC code was developed, you’d find that they probably spent as much time keeping it tight as they did writing it in the first place.

One of the points made a few months ago bears repeating, someone correct me if I'm wrong. All of the computations performed by the guidance computer could have been done, and, in fact, have been done with slide rules. The trajectory computations are very straightforward. The computer just allowed these computations to be made much quicker, and more importantly, without the risk of error.

Given the very limited scope of the task, the amount of memory (not even a true measure of computing power anyway) is more than adequate.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-04 10:58 ]</font>

JayUtah,
I'm glad that your not going to write anymore things because neither am I.

I present this group with what I would consider to be very good evidence and yet you all have a very hard time accepting it.

A very good example is the Spy Satellite article that was posted on another forum. The article was written by none other than James Oberg, who is closely tied to NASA. If you have the knowledge that you claim to have, you would know who this guy is. If you don't believe him then I can truly see why you don't believe me either. Mr Oberg is one of NASA's biggest voices against conspiracy theories in the past - especially the STS-75 Tether incident.

You seem to have a very narrowminded view and it comes as no surprise now why you haven't taken anything on board what I've said in the past or class my comments as 'irrelevant'. You expect me to show you evidence and then don't believe it, telling me that I should go and read up on things, when in fact it is you who needs to get more clued up on things happening at this present time and not in the early 70s.

Its very, very obvious to me that you really are not up to scratch with whats happening in the 'here and now' at all. If your so clued up on NASA, why didn't you know about the Clementine pictures of one of the Apollo sites? You speculate to what the pictures probably show, without even seeing them and only claim to know about them after I bring your attention to them.

To answer the question asked of me about the solution to testing the Apollo on the Moons surface before landing. Why couldn't NASA have remotely landed it first? They can remotely land a probe on Mars surface so why not the Moon?

I said in an earlier post 'If an object is moving away from you in near enough a straight line how can you predict how far it is simply by using ham radio? You cant.

To which you replied 'You can compute how fast it is moving. If you know the dynamics of the translunar trajectory, and you have located its signal according to celestial coordinates, you know where it should be'.

That does not answer my question of how far away it is, only its speed. As I said in an earlier post, the only way of finding out a radio signals exact location is by triangulation, but you haven't commented on that.

You also show ignorance regarding Satellites. In the UK our TV satellite is situated at 19.2 degrees East. Now if this satellite is going around the Earth every few minutes how do you suggest that we pick up a signal from it when its over Australia? How do you also suggest that our static satellite dishes pick up a signal if the satellite is passing across the sky?

My claim that a spy satellite could be positioned above a country is completely valid and I suggest you go and check out http://brianday.best.vwh.net/sat.htm
where it states 'Satellites in geosynchronous (also known as geostationary) orbits move about the Earth in equatorial orbits with altitudes near 22,300 miles high. At this altitude, a satellite's orbital velocity matches the angular velocity of Earth's rotation. Such a satellite will be parked above a given spot on the ground. '

Check this out to educate yourself. You'll find that there are two different types of satellites up their in space.'

There you go, a reference that checks out and which proves all the 'experts' on here wrong.

This is one of the reasons why this will be my last post because it is obvious to me that you really aren't as educated on all things space related as you wish me to believe.

Quote: 'You have made the assertion that they are stars. You are therefore responsible for proving they are stars. You may not state a proposition and then assume it's true until disproven, while supplying no proof yourself.'

It is you who doesn't believe they are stars, so its your task to prove me wrong, in the same way that you have challenged me to prove NASA footage is wrong. Stop switching the rules.

I have both pictures and moving footage of white specks in the sky which I believe are stars. The moving footage alone proves your theory of spots caused by processing to be incorrect. If spots caused by damage whilst being processed were the cause the spots would be static in one part of the film. But we see that the 'stars' stay static in the sky as the camera pans from left to right, thus ruling out damage to the film.

I have a photocopier here which shows small specks when I copy a letter or document. however, those dots stay in one place and don't move over the page, no matter how many copies of different documents I make. Look again at the photos on my site and you will see that your supposed printing error dots are moving all over the place.

The star pictures are also the most valid reason why I claim that the members here are contradicting each other. some of you say they shouldn't appear and some of you say they should. So which is it?

Qoute 'Because the flame is invisible in some cases and not in others'

Why? this should not be. Thats like saying an air balloon sometimes produces a flame and sometimes not when its turned on.

I said: 'I haven't claimed to read clavius at all, only parts of it. Another misquote.'

You reply: "Your words were, "I checked out JayUtah's site by the way and didn't see any reconstructions of the shadows with natural light... just a few old Apollo photos and a simulation with tubes."

They both mean the same thing 'Checked out means looked at, not thoroughly read all your site'. You really do like to pick at the littlest of things that I can prove is false. Also you say description, no picture exists there to prove your point.

And while were on this point of picture examples, you haven't even bothered to respond to my comment about the angle you had to place the cardboard to get the desired shadow effects on the pegs.

Quote: 'There are hundreds of pictures on hoax believer sites. I require the identification of specific one(s) that demonstrate a specific claim. I don't accept vague references as an argument.'

Now your being stubborn. From all the posts I've read on here having a dig at all the other HBers sites, I know very well that you know about the pictures I am talking about. You don't have to really act stupid, because your doing a pretty good job of it already.

'Finding these posts will support my statements about Earthshine 100%'

Your refusal to understand my comments are frustrating. I explained that I couldn't find them but said to contact 'The Rat' as he was part of the debate. Obviously you haven't bothered to ask him. Since then I have read the post by TBA about having to delete posts soon (and that was posted last October). Is it any clearer now why my posts cannot be found? I said that this might be the case, but as usual you didn't believe me. Oh well, its your loss.

I said: '50,000 ft is hardly close enough for a craft to test if it could land or not.'

you said '... in your highly expert opinion.'

I don't need to be an expert to know that hovering at 50,000ft above the lunar surface can tell anyone how a craft will land. That's like saying we tested how safe a car was in a crash by driving it within 50,000ft of the wall that would test how the safety aspect stood up to the brunt of the crash. Just a crazy statement that holds no water whatsoever.

'I am an expert.'

An 'ex is a has been and a 'spurt' is a jet of water under pressure. You are not an expert on landing the Apollo 11 craft! You have worked on a few rockets (but have not shown any evidence of this). How does that make you anymore an expert on testing the landing capability of the Apollo more than me when as I have stated and stand by my statement that it was never successfully tested on the Moon until it landed during Apollo 11. You or anyone else cannot dispute this, but have a hard time accepting this fact.

I said 'Crash safety, would you buy a car that had not had any safety crash tests done on it in the environment that it was intended to be used?'

You said: Irrelevant.

Yet another answer which skips the proposition. I'll answer this for you 'Unless you are an idiot you wouldn't get into the car'.

'If you have not seen the Apollo 11 EVA, which is only two and half hours long, then I'm skeptical that you have seen any appreciable portion of the other, much lengthier EVA footage.'

Another assumption on your part which is false and presumes incorrectly.

On the Grissom Apollo 1 tragedy. You need to learn to understand what is written. Its obvious to me what the paragraph suggests. It means that evidence that would prove some type of foul play has been confiscated. This is an allegation made by Grissom's own son.

'If this is the photo you refer to, then it does not satisfy your condition because it does not show the actual equipment.'

Not according to HJP Arnold and Patrick Moore. They say it does. But it seems that you have alot of different opinions to those people who work for or at NASA, the very same people who you expect me to believe?

On one of the other many forums here discussing my posts you say that a simulation of how shadows appear on many Apollo photos cannot be created with natural light and only artificial lighting. Thankyou, that is all I needed to know.

I asked 'Could science predict where lighting is going to strike? NO! Same arguement applies to solar flares, you cannot predict the unpredictable, even if your the most qualified scientist in the World.'

To which you replied (snip) 'It's the when that's iffy'

It took you 7 lines of conjecture before you unwittingly answered my question. NASA could not predict when solar flares would erupt.

Thankyou, no need to carry on this conversation any further because you just confirmed my belief that your just stabbing in the dark and are blind to much new evidence that has recently surfaced.


Thanks for the discussion and good luck with your beliefs.

Dave C. (CosmicDave)

PS: Perhaps you could notify other members of the board about this final Email as I see that BA has stopped the other discussion - Have I really thrown the cat amongst the pigeons?

Or is that the same reason why he didn't go head to head with Sibrel the first time on radio? Wasn't he convinced of his own evidence enough to stand up to a fight?

pvtpylot, i was attempting humor on 1st post. some people believe i never reached it [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

SpacedOut, thanks for the fixed tip, and roger your comments on coding. The links dasi posted had some great stuff on the development process and the necessary for lean, mean code.

You arrogant [self-censored]. You specifically stated that Hubble and Clementine imaged Apollo HARDWARE which they DID NOT.

NO ONE denies that Clementine imaged the area of an Apollo moon landing. You SPECIFICALLY said that the images were taken OF THE HARDWARE.

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

You are an abhorrently arrogant man. So many of us, in all aspects of EXPERTISE, either through formal education or "hands-on" experience have tried to present to you why the "evidence" you put forth is suspect, plain wrong, or illogical.

Yet you persist that we are ALL liars? That we are ALL unintelligent puppet-morons?

You, "sir", are a sad case. I'd pity you if I thought thinking about you was worth that much.

Sorry, BA, if this is too harsh and gets me banned. I just can not BELIEVE the gall of some people.

I'd ask you to LEAVE "Cosmic" Dave, but that's not my place and would likely just give you and more of your ken fuel to say you are poor opressed truth seekers.

You disgust me.

CJSF



_________________
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out."
-Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2002-06-04 11:24 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2002-06-04 11:47 ]</font>

Y'know, I stared at that thing for five minutes trying to figure out if it was sarcastic or serious. I finally decided when in doubt take it at face value...oops [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] My apologies...

Sure was an awfully long post for someone who wasn't going to write anymore, wasn't it? I did find the part at the end where he tries to sucker BA into the "debate" rather entertaining. Let's face it, folks, ole' cd was never here to debate as most of us define the word. He just wanted play escape and evade long enough to get the last word in so he can run back to his UFO buddies and brag about how he bested the experts on this board.

Are you inplying that the Apollo astronauts were all ducks?

That'll be news to Mrs. Lovell...

(pvt, I think you missed that little tongue boring a hole in STS's cheek...)

Poor Cosmicdave. Like other HBs, his argument style is identical to that of Holocaust deniers (no, I'm not calling anyone a N*zi, so don't call Godwin on me) and most Creationists. Really, the psychology of these people is far more interesting than any of their bogus "evidence".

I suggest next time we get the usual "wall of noise" post from an HB, we try to address just one point at a time. HBs and the like use the sheer number of arguments to lay a smokescreen. It would be interesting to see if we could get one to actually stick to the point, or rather, a point. Not that I have my hopes up [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

"As you said"? why on earth should we just take your word for this? You have provided no evidence you back up you opinion. The web, however, is chock full of sites devoted to the tracking of apollo, if you would just look for them (hint: enter "doppler shift" and "apollo" in a serch engine).

Ummm, since we know how fast radio signal travel, you can tell how far away something is by measuring the delay in the signal.



However, your point, even if it were true is invalid because what we are mainly concerned about is where the spacecraft is in relation to the moon. Since the S Band antennas are so directionally sensitive, if it is pointed even a degree off target, you wouldn't recieve the signal.

This from a person who has footage on his site claimed to be from the rover's video camera when the video camera is IN THE FOOTAGE itself! Can you say, DUH?

CD, in a world of dim bulbs, you are a veritable BLACK HOLE.

LOL, yeah, I got it after STS pointed it out to me. And yes, I feel dense [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Just a bad case of HB-related paranoid stress, I guess...

Anybody seen Johnno? (Figuratively, I mean)

He just loves beating the daylights out of cosmicdave every now and then. Too bad he missed out this time.

Wow, that last post from Cosmic Dave was really something, wasn't it? It sounds like he knows everything about almost anything that has to do with Apollo. Still, it's hard to take seriously someone who says Jesus appeared to him on his car's windshield. Now, if he had said Elvis, then maybe...

I'm glad that your not going to write anymore things because neither am I.

Sorry, but your parting shot is simply too arrogant, presumptive, and ignorant to pass up. We'll see if this is my last post. Rest assured I have little desire to attempt to educate you further.

I present this group with what I would consider to be very good evidence and yet you all have a very hard time accepting it.

We don't consider your evidence to be good. And we have tried patiently to explain why, but you are obviously not interested.

Further, you have made many more assertions than are supported by your evidence. When we have asked for evidence of these unsupported assertions, you have flatly refused to supply it.

The article was written by none other than James Oberg, who is closely tied to NASA.

I don't care if it was written by the ghost of Wernher von Braun. Too many things don't add up in the article. Therefore I dispute it. The alleged size of the object is far larger than a spy satellite. And yes, we can infer the size of those satellites from the equipment used to launch them, and from various other means. Further, the alleged orbit is inconsistent with a spy satellite.

This is part of your problem. You simply look at names and assume what they say is correct. You don't do any checking on your own. Just because it appears in print doesn't mean it's true or accurate.

You seem to have a very narrowminded view and it comes as no surprise now why you haven't taken anything on board what I've said in the past ...

Requiring some semblance of proof prior to agreeing to a proposition is not narrowminded.

You expect me to show you evidence and then don't believe it

Just because you show it to me doesn't mean I promise not to find anything wrong with it. But we can't discuss it at all until you show it.

If your so clued up on NASA, why didn't you know about the Clementine pictures of one of the Apollo sites?

Of course I know about the photo at the Apollo 15 landing site. It was discussed quite heavily amongst Apollo historians. But hoax believers do not accept it as evidence of a landing. And I agree, it is not conclusive evidence.

Why couldn't NASA have remotely landed it first?

Why would they have needed to? You still operate from your assumption that your methods and theory of spacecraft testing are somehow valid. I don't agree with your assumption.

No aircraft today are test-flown by remote control prior to their first flight by a human. There are reasons for this, but I doubt you'd be interested in hearing them.

That does not answer my question of how far away it is, only its speed.

If you understood trajectories, you'd understand that speed gives you location. Further, there is dead reckoning. From a known starting point, direction and speed give you location.

As I said in an earlier post, the only way of finding out a radio signals exact location is by triangulation, but you haven't commented on that.

Not directly. I said it was naive and asked you to describe your expertise in spacecraft tracking. You didn't and obviously don't intent to. Your opinion of what is possible and impossible in spacecraft tracking means very little to me.

You also show ignorance regarding satellites.

Hardly. Until just a few months ago, they were my job.

In the UK our TV satellite is situated at 19.2 degrees East.

At an altitude of ... ?

Now if this satellite is going around the Earth every few minutes

I said transits occurred for low earth orbit satellites, such as where you say the command module was, and where the TETR-A satellite was. I did not say this was true for all satellites. It is true only for the ones you had hitherto proposed. Now that you are bringing up geosynchronous satellites, the rules change.

My claim that a spy satellite could be positioned above a country is completely valid

No, it is not.

'Satellites in geosynchronous (also known as geostationary) orbits ...

Incorrect. Geostationary is a subset of geosynchronous. In other words, an orbit can be geosynchronous without being geostationary. A geosynchronous orbit is one whose period is equivalent to the rotational period of its primary. A geostationary orbit is a circular geosynchronous orbit with a zero inclination, rendering the altitude and azimuth of the satellite constant from a point on earth.

... move about the Earth in equatorial orbits with altitudes near 22,300 miles high.

... far beyond the altitude at which a spy satellite is useful. Spy satellites operate at altitudes of approximately 150 nautical miles. This is how they achieve their remarkable resolution.

You'll find that there are two different types of satellites up their in space.'

No. If you're classifying satellites by the characteristics of their orbits, there is an infinite number of types of satellites up there in space. And you don't seem to know much about any of them.

There you go, a reference that checks out and which proves all the 'experts' on here wrong.

No, it's a reference which has nothing to do with spy satellites, got a basic fact wrong, and illustrates only your inability to read, understand, and apply what you read to what you think.

...it is obvious to me that you really aren't as educated on all things space related as you wish me to believe.

LOL!

It is you who doesn't believe they are stars, so its your task to prove me wrong,

No. That's not how proof works. Propositions are not true unless proven false.

Stop switching the rules.

I'm not switching the rules. You assert they're stars; prove they're stars. I'm not asserting they aren't stars. I'm simply saying your claim, without evidence, is unconvincing. There is a big difference between the failure to establish a proposition and the establishment of its converse. You have failed to establish your propisition. That does not mean I assert the converse.

My argument regarding the video is not that there are no stars in it, but that I don't yet see a feature in it that to me resembles stars. But I admit that may be because I'm not looking in the right place, so I have suspended judgment pending additional clarification.

I have both pictures and moving footage of white specks in the sky which I believe are stars.

Good for you. I don't believe that. If you wish to establish that your belief is correct, present evidence. And rest assured I will examine the strength of that evidence. But I can't until you present it.

The moving footage alone proves your theory of spots caused by processing to be incorrect.

It wasn't clear in that part of the discussion that you were referring to your six-second video and not your poor-quality photos. I was under the impression you were talking about the stars in your photo, and so supplied an argument intended for that set of evidence. I did not mean for it to apply to the video. I believe we're on the same page now.

I agree that scanner contamination would not apply to the video. That does not rule out other artifacts, but it would require artifacts of a different type and origin.

some of you say they shouldn't appear and some of you say they should.

You're confusing two different subjects. You still have not come to terms with my answer to your first question. Seeing (and photographing) stars from the lunar surface is not identical to seeing them from earth orbit. You persist in ignoring the pertinent differences.

Why? this should not be.

Your opinion of what should and should not be is of little value. I have explained this numerous times.

Different propellants combust with different visible characteristics.

Within the same propellant type, small rockets generally don't produce visible transients while large rockets do. Because of fluctuating bipropellant ratios during startup, transients produce visible flames that are not found in steady-state operation.

Pump-fed rockets generally have longer transients due to fluctuations inherent to pump spool-up.

This is the last time I will attempt to explain this to you. Don't bring this up again until you are prepared to discuss the operation of rocket engines in terms other than irrelevant analogies.

That's like saying an air balloon sometimes produces a flame and sometimes not when its turned on.

No, it's nothing like saying that.

They both mean the same thing 'Checked out means looked at, not thoroughly read all your site'.

Nevertheless the answer to your question was on that page. I sent you there with the understanding that you would read the page and thereby acquire the answer. You chose not to. Then later you misrepresented my argument in a way that would have been hard to do had you actually read it.

I have no patience for people who refuse to read answers they ask for.

Also you say description, no picture exists there to prove your point.

Completely false. Figures 11, 12, and 13 illustrate my argument that there is a variation in lunar terrain down-sun of the flag. Even after all this you still have not read the page!

And while were on this point of picture examples, you haven't even bothered to respond to my comment about the angle you had to place the cardboard to get the desired shadow effects on the pegs.

That's because the answer appears in the description of the first photograph, which you obviously did not bother to read. Another poster tried to bring this to your attention, but you obviously didn't notice it then either.

The Apollo 11 sun elevation was about 10 degrees. The sun elevation when I took the photographs was some 55-60 degrees. Since clouds were threatening to move in again, and since you had made a second demand for such evidence, I had to make do with the prevailng sun elevation. In order to reduce that sun elevation to the required 10 degrees, the apparatus must be tilted some 45-50 degrees, as was done. This makes the sun angle approximately 10 degrees with respect to the "local" horizontal against which the shadows were measured. I do not argue that the lunar terrain is tilted to that extreme.

Now someone who knows how shadows are actually cast would recognize this as a legitimate compensational step. You have shown repeatedly that you don't understand any of the shadow evidence that's put before you.

Now your being stubborn.

No, I'm not. I'm simply asking you to identify one or more specific pictures which illustrate the exact point you're trying to make, so that there can be no confusion over what specific anomaly is intended and what specific lighting or optical principles might apply.

Why is this too much to ask?

I know very well that you know about the pictures I am talking about.

No, I don't. There are hundreds of pictures out there, and dozens of them that refer to various aspects of parallax and apparent distance. You aren't specific about which parallax effect you mean, so I'm simply asking you to find a photo or series of photos and show me what you believe is wrong with that.

I'm trying to preclude the unpleasant feature of this debate wherein you make a vague argument, I assume you mean some specific thing by that, get it wrong, and then you jump down my throat saying I'm misstating your argument.

It's becoming clear that you want your arguments to be vague and misinterpreted, because it provides you with the only thing you really seek: evidence you can spin toward the proposition that we're confused.

I explained that I couldn't find them but said to contact 'The Rat' as he was part of the debate. Obviously you haven't bothered to ask him.

It's not my responsibility to provide evidence for your assertions.

Oh well, its your loss.

No, it's yours. You have no evidence to support your assertion.

I don't need to be an expert to know that hovering at 50,000ft above the lunar surface can tell anyone how a craft will land.

I submit that you do. If you are not a test pilot or an aeronautical engineer then I submit you are not qualified to determine what constitutes a sufficient flight test, or overall testing plan.

You are not an expert on landing the Apollo 11 craft!

That's debatable. I'm reasonably sure I know more about it that you do. What would you like to know?

How does that make you anymore an expert on testing the landing capability of the Apollo

Because I know how spacecraft are tested. I know how other products are tested. I know how quality control people use precise methodologies to avoid wasting time, money, and effort testing things that don't need to be tested in separate steps. After Apollo 10 the next step in the testing process was to attempt an actual landing. This was done on Apollo 11, whose only ironclad mission requirement was to land and takeoff again safely.

I have stated and stand by my statement that it was never successfully tested on the Moon until it landed during Apollo 11.

But this is based on your personal definition of a "successfull test". You don't seem to realize that we may have valid reasons for not accepting your definition.

You or anyone else cannot dispute this, but have a hard time accepting this fact.

It is not a fact. It has always been, and still remains, your opinion. You are not qualified to evaluate the sufficiency of a spacecraft test program.

You can't seem to make up your mind. You say that you yourself don't need to be an expert to determine that the LM test procedures were deficient. But then you try to argue that I'm not an expert in landing the LM and so I have no business trying to talk about testing the LM. Which is it?

Yet another answer which skips the proposition.

No, I pointed out in an entire paragraph why your analogy doesn't apply to your point. I am not required to "take the bait" of irrelevant analogies.

Comparing the testing of consumer products to the testing of experimental special-purpose technology is invalid.

But I shall employ your analogy to make a point. You argue that a consumer product such as a car is rigorously tested before it can be used by the intended customer. Who designs those tests? Is it merely laymen with no special knowledge of how cars are built, or the principles of physics that apply to collisions? Or is it highly qualified scientists with detailed understanding of physics and of the construction of the car?

Would you ride in a car whose test plan had been devised by someone who tested only what he thought was obvious, based on no special understanding of the principles involved? Or would you want your car to be tested by someone who tested what was obvious based on years of education and experience. Things which are obvious to people with vast experience and understanding are not necessarily obvious to those who don't have them.

And since physics and engineering are frequently counterintuitive, things which the layman supposes to be obvious test points may not be informative when analyzed with the appropriate methdologies.

In other words, you tout automotive testing as a reasonable yardstick without realizing that it shows just how important it is for qualified people to plan and conduct those tests. If mere unqualified "common sense" were necessary to develop a test procedure, then automotive firms could simply hire anyone at $40,000 to do the job. They wouldn't have to hire an engineer at $90,000 or $100,000 a year to do it. They obtain that expertise because that expertise is required.

Now in light of this, why should your opinion of LM testing hold any water?

Another assumption on your part which is false and presumes incorrectly.

If I interpret this remark correctly, then, you represent that you have seen the entire Apollo 11 EVA. Then you should have no problem discussing Neil Armstrong's leap up the LM ladder.

Its obvious to me what the paragraph suggests.

Perhaps because you wrote it and therefore know what it means. To a different reader your meaning may not be obvious.

From your garbled clarification it is apparent that you intended the parenthetical to refer to the evidence, not to the spacecraft itself. If so, then I agree my comments about the custody of the Apollo 1 spacecraft are irrelevant.

As for the evidence, I'll take your word for it that it has been confiscated from Grissom. Since Grissom is accusing NASA of murder, don't you think the organization accused of such a crime would be entitled to examine the evidence against it? It is, after all, NASA's property.

Not according to HJP Arnold and Patrick Moore.

Then your question is satsified.

The Clementine photo I've discussed which shows the Apollo 15 landing site does not show any equipment.

But it seems that you have alot of different opinions ...

Attempting to depict uncertainty will not make it magically appear. Nor will it prove you are correct.

For example, you say the blue glow on Apollo 13 is the earth seen through the window. Hypothetically one person here may say it's the reflection of the cabin lights off the glass. Another may say it's scatter from contamination.

In your mode of thinking, you point out that they are two different explanations, therefore we are confused. It doesn't matter to you that both explanations can be correct and contribute to the effect. I don't say that you have made this exact argument, but it is an argument of the type that you would make.

Now suppose hypothetically someone comes along and proves that it can't be cabin reflection (say, by showing the effect with all the cabin lights turned out), and someone else proves it can't be scatter (say, by showing empirically that light wouldn't have scattered that way).

Now in your mind, having our two hypotheses shot down, or at least seriously questioned, would somehow proves your point. It doesn't work that way. Proving what it isn't doesn't prove what it is, unless the proposition is by nature boolean.

Example:

I hear a crash from my bedroom and run in to find a potted plant broken on the floor. I postulate the theory that space aliens from the planet Krouton landed, broke into my room, upset my plant, and left without a trace. My friend postulates that my cat upset the plant. But I point out that the cat was with me at the time I heard the crash. Does this mean I can assert as fact my Kroutonian hypothesis? No, of course not. I would still have to prove that the planet Krouton actually existed and is inhabited, that its inhabitants came to earth, that they actually did upset my plant.

Now you may argue that I've presented an absurd situation. That's on purpose. In fact, an infinite number of absurd hypotheses can be formulated to explain my plant's demise. And the method of proof outlined above, which you use extensively, does not distinguish between them. The point of a logical process or an investigative process is to distinguish hypotheses -- to accept some and throw others away.

Similarly with your insistence on counterproof. Because there is, in the universe, an infinite number of false propositions which cannot be disproved, it is not a useful method of reasoning to state a proposition and announce that is fact unless it can be proven. You cannot demonstrate that your hypothesis is one of those false ones which lacks a proof.

Therefore the burden of proof is always upon the person who asserts the proposition. Logic is the principle of arriving at reliable conclusion. The absence of proof for the converse does not provide reliable proof.

On one of the other many forums here discussing my posts you say that a simulation of how shadows appear on many Apollo photos cannot be created with natural light and only artificial lighting.

I was in a hurry and typed the wrong thing. I've added a correction while leaving the error in place to provide context and avoid charges of revisionism. Thanks to you and to Jovianboy for noticing the error.

But I notice that you don't hesitate to take liberties with my statement in order to amplify it for your purposes. I said, "The point, quite bluntly stated, is that you can't reproduce the Apollo photo using natural light." I didn't explicitly state the converse, as you have implied. Nor did I extend my statement to "many Apollo photos," as you say. I quite intentionally limited to this particular photo.

Thankyou, that is all I needed to know.

Of course. You certainly wouldn't want any context or anything to go with that, or any explanation for why I apparently said something out of character. It's obvious you're just here to acquire ammunition for your site, to create the appearance of uncertainty or contradiction so you can try to make it look like you know what you're talking about by comparison.

It took you 7 lines of conjecture before you unwittingly answered my question.

I didn't unwitting answered it. I wittingly answered it. First, I do not agree with your analogy that lightning strikes and solar events present an identical predictive problem. That was the premise on which your argument was based.

Second, my answer was the lengthy reference to statistical probability, the principles of which adequately answer your question. You completely ignored it.

NASA could not predict when solar flares would erupt.

But that is not the same problem as predicting whether it is likely one will erupt in a given direction on a given sequence of days.

Let's add prediction to the long list of subjects you pretend to understand, but know nothing about.

Thankyou, no need to carry on this conversation any further because you just confirmed my belief ...

I highly doubt you needed this conversation to confirm any belief of yours. In fact, your beliefs have remained almost completely invariant throughout this entire discussion, despite the wealth of information uncovered.

But it's obvious you were hoping, by means of selective quotation and deliberate obtuseness, to harvest a new set of perceived inconsistencies in your opponents' statements (despite that you couldn't document any of your prior ones) and that we will no doubt be treated, in short order, to a new paragraph at your site in which you will clumsily attempt to summarize and characterize our arguments, splitting more hairs than a barber.

What baffles me is that you seem to honestly believe this procedure establishes fact.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-04 14:49 ]</font>

Just so everyone is clear, I am not, nor have I ever been cosmicdave. I haven't posted to any of these threads with cosmicdave's incoherent rambling because I've been away for the past week. Besides, I'm not really into whipping a defenseless puppy.
Does anyone have any idea who this character is? His style of "debate" rings a lot like Slime AKA C.C. AKA Carrot Cruncher AKA .... etc. After a while one starts to form the impression that there is a single digit number of ardent HBs who create their apparent numerical strength by using several screen names in the mistaken belief that their case is strengthened by the number of supporters. Too bad they don't give the same weight to evidence and logic.

Supposedly he’s - Dave Cosnette webmaster of the Cosmic Conspiracies' website.

But you never know.

That's because you care about facts and take pride in getting them right. What cosmicdave cares about is his status as a self-styled "authority" in the UFO community and the attention he gets because of it.

What's funny is that if you do a search for "Dave Cosnette" on Google it seems that one of his claims to fame amongst his own peers is that he has been accused of copyright theft and headline grabbing for the sake of increasing his site's hit count. Here's the URL:

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ncc2.htm

I don't know, maybe we should take a blood sample and put a hot needle in it just to make sure you're human...
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Not to worry; there's no way anyone could mistake either one of you for the other.

(However, there are, like, drugs, dude, that might help you to, like, y'know, become Cosmic! Like? Y'know?)

(Me, I just get high on life, and America...)

Silas

What cosmicdave cares about is his status as a self-styled "authority" in the UFO community and the attention he gets because of it.

If he wants to be an authority in the UFO community I have no problem with it. Just so long as he doesn't think that magically gives him any kind of expertise in actual space travel. I feel sorry for someone who has to accumulate celebrity by misquoting and misrepresenting other people.

Jay, a question. Is it not true that a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is not visible to the naked eye or binoculars? If that is true, we can be assured the satellite found by the Japanese astronomers was moving in relation to the ground.

I will iterate again that the article supports out contention that you cannot "hide" a spacecraft in orbit, simply because these astronomers were able to pick this one out from all the debris that is already up there.

CD also seems to be leaning toward saying that the CM was hidden by being put in geosynchronous orbit. This also wouldn't work because that puts it smack in the middle of the "deadly" Van Allen belts.

I'm sure Cosmic Dave won't go outside during a thunderstorm for fear of being struck by lightning. LOL.

San Francisco is well overdue for an earthquake. Why does anyone go there?

Is it not true that a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is not visible to the naked eye or binoculars?

True. A spy satellite is about 60 feet long (possibly shorter, but no longer). Put one of those in a geosynchronous orbit and it's like trying to see a penny from 31 miles away.

Seeing a spy satellite in its customary orbit is like seeing that same penny from 1,100 feet away. Still pretty hard to see.

The important fact is that satellites are reflective. That's why you can see them. But from geosynchronous orbit the good ol' inverse square law takes over. A satellite in geosynchronous orbit will be 0.0046% as bright as the same satellite in low earth orbit.

This also wouldn't work because that puts it smack in the middle of the "deadly" Van Allen belts.

But C. Dave is far more interested in trying to make us look foolish than in actually understanding physical principles.

While we're on this subject, a lot of the "pulsing" UFO sightings are discarded booster segments in orbit, tumbling end over end.

Cool! You mean that there have been UFO sightings coincident with major launches? How humiliating!

Here in San Diego, we often can see those lovely, weird, kinked vapor trails left from rocket launches from Vandenberg. They're eerie, and kinky, and quite pretty. And every doggone time, someone freaks out and insists that they're of otherworldly origin.

How do we win? My mother used to sit out on the front porch in the evening, and watch the stars. She insisted that she could see UFOs making maneuvers that could not be explained by aircraft. I never could see them, which led her to wonder about a "skeptical effect." You know: people who are dubious will not see the same phenomenon as those who have a truly "open mind."

We must all do our best...

Silas

You mean that there have been UFO sightings coincident with major launches?

No, these are booster segments that have been jettisoned at a high enough altitude that they go into orbit. They're up there for months or years. Almost all of them tumble, and if they happen to catch the light they look like a pulsating object moving across the sky.

And every doggone time, someone freaks out and insists that they're of otherworldly origin.

My opinion is that there's enough weird stuff in the sky caused by normal stuff that we don't need to leap immediately to an extraterrestrial conclusion.

How do we win?

We don't, so we redefine victory. Victory is simply providing a well-reasoned, documented alternative response, whether or not any specific person believes it.

people who are dubious will not see the same phenomenon as those who have a truly "open mind."

Seems like a good line of reasonining, doesn't it? Well, in most cases that apply to conspiracy theories, it's hogwash. Most conspiracy theorists say you have to have an open mind, but when you get right down to it they only want your mind to be open far enough to accept their conclusions. If you open it any further, to the extent of questioning their conclusions, they tend to get angry.

Unfortunately we still live in the land of superstition. We still have buildings with no thirtenth floor. We still look askance at black cats. (I own two.) We still cross our fingers, pull the petals off of flowers, avoid swalling our chewing gum, and dutifully wait for an hour after eating before we go in swimming.

Now in practice most of these foibles are harmless. But it's the mindset that we allow to develop that becomes harmful.

I was very impressed with some of the statements the Bad Astronomer made in his debate with Bart Sibrel on the subject of science and scientific inquiry. What a lot of people don't realize is that the progression of science is based quite firmly on the notion that conclusions are supposed to be questioned.

I argue that scientists (and by extension anyone who aspires to that mode of thought) are quite open-minded. When a scientist observes something that contradicts prevailing theory, and the observation is verified to be correct, the scientist immediately questions the theory. There are hundreds of scientific journals. Most of the papers in those journals exist only to question prevailing theory. The daily travail of science is self-examination, the admission that what is accepted may not be fully correct.

Contrast this with conspiracy theory belief. It bears a striking resemblance to religion. (Being a religious person myself I bear no malice toward religion, but I have to point out that religious knowledge is acquired differently than scientific knowledge.) In a religion, knowledge is dispensed from an infallible authority and is presumed complete and correct as dispensed.

In short, it is considered poor taste for a religious adherent to question the doctrine. Thus when some fact appears to contradict religious knowledge, adherents naturally conclude there must be something wrong with the fact. And so all manner of conjectural argumentation is brought into play to erode the significance of the fact.

Now the reconciliation of science and religion is beyond what I want to accomplish here. But I believe the conspiracy theory phenomenon resembles a religion in the sense that belief is established a priori as a matter of philosophy or suggestion, not as a matter of conclusion pursuant to evidence.

The central tenet of conspiracism is that the wielders of power -- overt, covert or merely postulated -- engage in a wholesale program of deception and disinformation in order to exploit and subjugate the general population. This manifests itself in the several conspiracy theories: Apollo, JFK, 9/11, and so forth. But they're just appendages to the central doctrine of government corruption, deception, and untrustworthiness.

When the facts appear to contradict the doctrine, the doctrine is not questioned. The conspiracist focuses on undermining the fact -- chiefly with speculation and pseudoscience. If the fact cannot be undermined, a different argument supporting the doctrine is put forward, employing different facts and different sciences. This is why you see conspiracists jumping from topic to topic without ever conceding. They're trying to defend their kernel of belief, deploying whatever argument they think will protect it. There is no attempt whatsoever to get at the actual truth. The actual truth is irrelevant; protection of the belief is paramount.

But you can see why the conspiracists are so happy and comfortable with their conjectural arguments. They aren't looking to find reliable support for a conclusion. They're looking for an "out", and excuse to continue their desired beliefs in the face of inconvenient facts. In Cosmic Dave's case, his excuse is the apparent confusion here on the board -- whether it happens naturally or whether he has to create it or whether it's just a figment of his imagination. The key is that he really wants to believe in his theory, but he also wants a pseudo-intellectual post-justification for his beliefs. Any excuse to continue that belief is sufficient.

Moon hoax believers are quite satisfied with the notion that just maybe it was all done on a soundstage, and just maybe NASA wasn't up to the task, and just maybe the photographs were all falsified. They don't need full-blown proof, just an excuse for why the evidence just maybe doesn't apply to their beliefs. They need some possible way -- however farfetched or conjectural -- for their pre-existing beliefs to remain plausible to them.

Very infrequently is the conspiracist doctrine successfully challenged. The migration from the "thousands of errors" to "thousands of whistle-blows" is an example. In general, the doctrine remains unchanged and must be defended by whatever pseudo-intellectual means present themselves.

Is this ringing a bell with anyone?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-04 22:29 ]</font>

Is this ringing a bell with anyone?

Sure, with anyone who's ever debated (most) creationists. (raises hand) Or, from what bits I've seen, anyone who's argued with Holocaust revisionists. Or, as Jay or someone mentioned, fluoridation-haters. Or JFK conspiracists, or "Philadelphia experiment" believers. Or, well, you get the idea.

Heck, it happens with many sports fans - it's happened with me [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Of course the referees conspired to rob us.

The real job is to try to educate those who are just misled, not those who Know The Truth (tm). Not that we shouldn't challenge the latter, as politely as possible (though I confess to being a might tetchy with CD myself).

I just want to try the idea of focusing from the start on just one of the usual scattershot of arguments the next HB will toss out. Stay focused on it like a laser, and keep them in the kill zone until they quit in frustration at being unable to get the "wall of noise" going.

"I'm sorry, Celestial Sam, but before we go on to discussing points 2 through 300, you really need to address exactly why you think a satellite in Earth orbit could imitate a spacecraft in a cislunar trajectory."

Good stuff pvtpylot. What I find particularly paradoxical is this quotation by cosmicdave in the link provided:

"What was it that Stanton Friedman said? 'Don't bother me with the facts, my mind's made up!'."

LOL! Talk about pots and black kettles! This quote is a precise description of cosmicdave's psychology!

JayUtah explains the concept in more detail:

"This is why you see conspiracists jumping from topic to topic without ever conceding. They're trying to defend their kernel of belief, deploying whatever argument they think will protect it. There is no attempt whatsoever to get at the actual truth. The actual truth is irrelevant; protection of the belief is paramount." (from the preceding post)

There is, however, one other significant problem with cosmicdave. I suspect his inability to engage in a logical debate is based upon his obvious difficulties with the written English language. I am not slinging ad hominems here: while it is possible that he is deliberately not reading responses to his posts properly, I think it is more likely that his reading comprehension skills are woeful.

In addition, his knowledge of the space sciences is clearly next to nil. Here's an example of one of Jay's attempts to educate our poor Dave:

Cosmicdave: "Satellites in geosynchronous (also known as geostationary) orbits ..."

JayUtah: "Incorrect. Geostationary is a subset of geosynchronous. In other words, an orbit can be geosynchronous without being geostationary. A geosynchronous orbit is one whose period is equivalent to the rotational period of its primary. A geostationary orbit is a circular geosynchronous orbit with a zero inclination, rendering the altitude and azimuth of the satellite constant from a point on earth."

That certainly helped me to understand the definitions better, but cosmicdave? Sorry Jay, but you probably lost him after the first sentence.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject of communication skills, I JUST HAVE TO MENTION THIS as it's been really BUGGING ME from the beginning:

Dave! Among your numerous grammatical and spelling errors this one is the most common, and the most annoying: you constantly abbreviate "you are" to "your". The contraction of "you are" is YOU'RE!

Right, that feels better...

__________________
Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness. ...in the principles of evolution we have had our answer: of men elsewhere... there will be none, forever. - Loren Eisely, The Immense Journey, 1956.