Those regulars on the ATM section of this board will know Neville Jones' fairly unique take on cosmology. He's a class A HB, with an interesting addition - in that, for his main theory (a Christian-fundamentalist geostatic cosmos) to work at all, not only Apollo, but absolutely all evidence from space missions beyond LEO (whether NASA or not) has to be faked by a global conspiracy.

Much of his web site is non-scientific, but occasionally he undertakes forays in to physics and mathematical analysis to make his points. They are usually fun to analyse to see where his mistakes are.

The latest gem is here: Apollo Analysis PDF - it's 1.2Mb but only 8 pages.

The early sections set out the background of his theory.

Section 4 goes into some detail on the published performance of the Saturn V, and concludes that Apollo/Saturn had enough fuel to reach the vicinity of the Moon - but not to go into orbit, because Neville's theory requires that the Moon be orbiting the static Earth at 61,300 mph!

Section 5 opens then with this challenge:

In section 5 he presents the scenario of a rotating Earth, with the Moon orbiting it at the more conventionally accepted figure of 2,300 mph. He then declares reaching the Moon in this scenario to also be impossible, as Apollo would reach the vicinity of the Moon at 25,000 mph. He conveniently neglects to tell his audience that this was only Apollo's speed at the start of the journey to the Moon, not at the end of it. Despite a passing mention to the Earth's gravitational pull, he does not calculate it's slowing effects on a spacecraft heading out from Earth.

Next he goes on to the Laser Retroreflector experiment.

His first point (at the top of page 6) is easily dismissed as a straw-man argument. He presents the retroflector equipment as - in effect - a single aligned flat mirror pointed precisely back at the Earth, when a little research would tell him it wasn't. He obviously has never seen a car or bicycle rear reflector.

His second point is also intended to show that no reflected signal could be got back from the Moon. It is actually beyond my knowledge to argue against, as it goes into adaptive optics. I'd appreciate a pointer here!

Section 7, entitled Miscellaneous Problems is a grab-bag of standard HB arguments. No great surprises here - the LM trainer ejection, radiation, no room for the LRV in the LM, etc etc. He doesn't go into any detail on these, simply stating them as bald facts without any supporting argument.

His third comment is curious though - without any cite, he claims that the Russians had determined that to survive the radiation on the lunar surface would require lead suits a metre thick. I've not seen that claim before and wonder where it comes from?

Rob.

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

As his forum is now closed to anyone not prepared to sign up to his statement of faith he will probably find any criticism easy to deal with.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

That paper would be pretty sad for anyone, let alone an alleged PhD. Some of that stuff is on the same level as "how did the astronauts get through the heat shield?"

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I've talked to a number of fairly intelligent people who thought the entire SM was available for the astronauts to live in and work. They also wondered what type of mechanism the astronauts used to get "through the heat shield". Of course these people were fully convinced we went to the Moon. They had just been misinformed or came to an erroneous conclusion. They adjusted their view once it was explained to them.

I doubt this guys excuse is quite so pure.

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

I have no problem with laypeople making that mistake, but someone trying to refute a claim should at least understand the claim.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Yes, especially when this claim is so easy to check out with just a little research. Either he doesn't do research or he's just throwing this out hoping he can blow it by the less informed. Either way it doesn't give much confidence in the rest of his "analysis".

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

Yes, that would be nice, but it certainly hasn't stopped the HBer's so far. :roll:

The problem I see with his geostationary analysis is that he uses Newtonian mechanics. His claim that the landing couldn't take place in a geostationary frame appeals to accentricity to use these calculations in that frame. But only GR is truely accentric. With the moon going at over 60,000mph he has equally shown that the moon couldn't be there in its current orbit.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Good point. Although he'll probably use that to claim that Newton is wrong as well...

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Yeah I'm sure he will - it's typical of his circular logic. But this point can, I hope, convince some of his followers that his proof is no more a proof that the moon landing couldn't happen than it is a proof that the moon isn't there.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

ROFLMAO - thats a hoot

has any one been brave enough to sign up to " doctor " jones board and ask him how he would depict the other planets on his strange geocentric solar system plan to account for thier observed orbits - both from earth and the probes we have lauched

if not i might have too - lol

YRS - APE

A few of us have in the past. I'm currently banned ostensibly for not signing up to his statement of faith. Coincidentally this was just after I noticed the board was back online and asked him if he was yet able to admit to two very simple errors in his other "proofs" that I had pointed out previously. He has told me I am welcome back if I stick to his agenda which is currently the moon landings. I figured that if he can't admit that he's made a simple mathematical error when it is pointed out to him then there is not much point in discussing anything else with him.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

My Grandfather would have disagreed. Fifty years ago, he worked on a little project called Diana.

__________________
"That's Not Blight. It's New Jersey" - The Wall Street Journal

From what I recall Jones does not believe that we have launched anything beyond low-Earth orbit, so the "probes" are all hoaxes. I can't remember why exactly that he has to deny the existance of man-made objects beyond low-orbit.

__________________
Now while I might be amused by Cthulhians, I don't necessarily distrust them to carry out the functions of government. -- JayUtah

What's it like being a skeptic in the Middle East? Check out my blog.

I wonder how he thinks GPS works, as this is in MEO.

Or how about all the geostationary satellites?

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

I might be mistaken about low-earth orbit (maybe MEO are okay too?), worzel or Yorkshireman might know better. I'm pretty sure he denies the existance of interplanetary probes and other such missions, which is why he has to deny the Apollo Program as well.

__________________
Now while I might be amused by Cthulhians, I don't necessarily distrust them to carry out the functions of government. -- JayUtah

What's it like being a skeptic in the Middle East? Check out my blog.

I think he is on record a while back as saying that geostainary satellites would prove the earth does move.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

I'm guessing, then, that he has cable rather than satellite t.v.