I was rummaging through the dark depths of nasascam to anger myself, and although there are too many ridiculous things there to discuss on a thread or try to e-mail the owner about, I did come upon this puzzling statement:

What the frleckerlies does that mean? What is the "conical space capsule"? As far as I know, the Apollo CM was the only conical part of the CSM/LM stack. Perhaps the astronauts rode into orbit inside the SPS? I believe (wink wink) that this is another example of the confusion of the author of nasascam. What does he think the Command Module is? Does he think it's the LM? I am really befuddled by this statement.

Also, he uses the word "conical" a time too many and the astronauts did not climb out of the top of the Command Module after splashdown, but rather exited through the side hatch. (I know you all know that, but I'll include a picture just for the heck of it.) 8)




BTW, while searching for a decent Apollo recovery picture, I stumbled across this site, a great collection of pictures from the Apollo 17 mission.[/img]

It seems to me that the author has confused the Service Module (SM) with the Command Module (CM).

The SM held the fuel, engines, fuel cells, batteries, etc., The CM was the living quarters, (and more) and its backside held the heat shield.

Maybe you could send him this link to the Virtual Apollo book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

Interesting site, but garbage nevertheless.

I would say that this is simply a reflection of straight ignorance. The writer seems to be of the opinion that the astronauts actually travelled in the SM (which he/she has incorrectly referred to as the CM), and then (presumably for re-entry) had to clamber 'through' the heat shield into the "conical space capsule". It is not clear whether 'getting out at the pointed end' refers to egress after splashdown or to transfer into the LM for the lunar landing....second possibility is perhaps a little more understandable but either way, the writer is horribly off the mark. :roll:

By the way, what the frleckerlies does frleckerlies mean?? (Great phrase )

BBCode fixed by The Bad Astronomer :-)

Yes, but has anyone noticed that the person (presumably an astronaut) in the photograph is wearing a bra! This can only mean one thing! The missions were faked, and the person standing on the side of the capsule is a stuntwoman!

Actually they did climb through the top of the command module to get into the LM. After docking, the inside of the docking mechanism is dismantled to allow entry to the LM through a small tunnel.

Look at the nice photo - you can clearly see the rim round the top of the re-entry module of the hatch where they crawled in. What the confused HB appears to be claiming (as I read it) is that the crawl wouldn't have been possible because the chutes are on the top. The picture also shows that they are arranged around the edge of the central hatch.

Basically, this is a simple case of mistaking how the re-entry module is built, and the photo demonstrates what the correct design is.

This particular 'FACT' takes the biscuit. Can you believe on the home page he actually accuses us off not doing any research and then pulls this. Such ignorance would be amusing but the fact that he is so obnoxious and so uncritically sure he is right and we are brain-damaged, it just becomes insulting.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Now you folks see why I do this. The NASAScam site -- which is quoted by many -- contains errors that any elementary schoolchild of my era would have instantly recognized and corrected. The author of that site is easily the most ignorant individual that has ever tried to "educate" his peers about Apollo.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

That's not a bra... that's the 'bro.'

*nods*

You have to consider that we've had loads of threads on this board about Nasascam and I don't know what happened on the old board. This guy gets us so worked up we just can't stop ranting whenever someone brings up the subject.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

I was thinking about that. I quote one paragraph from him and immediately get ten angered replies.

Anyway, here are some more facts for you to feast on:
Oh, I get it- so you can't see the curvature of Earth or have light reflected onto your spacecraft if you are not orbiting it.

How convincing this fact is. You really showed me the way of truth with that gem of a fact.

I don't remember the equation for calulating lux or luminosity, but I do remember reading once that the Moon actually provides such little illumination that the sun at Pluto is about 217 times brighter than a fully lit Moon appears to us on Earth. Also, he fails to acknowledge the albedo of the Moon is only around 4%.

I like this. Here he is essentially saying "There claims are wrong, but if someone proves they are right, then they are actually lying as to the source of the rocks."

Here this chump gets confused with software needed to run a graphically appealing lunar landing game and the software needed to perform simple calculations to take LMs to the surface. Although the LM computer could not add two numbers, it was not needed to, whereas a simulation of a lunar landing needs to model a LM, all its systems, a landscape, etc.[/quote]

Not too long ago, I brought up the subject here and yet we all still feel compelled to go at it all over again.

The blue haze issue was rammed down Cosmic Dave's throat numerous times. It the result of scatter due to all sorts of crap on the window. Jay called it New Car Smell. The curvature issue is probably Sibrellian. He's confusing the curvature of Earth with the edge of the outside of the window.

The issue with this is that Homer clearly doesn't know the difference between fact and opinion. His insult as proof of his case clearly shows how obnoxious and irrational he is.

The inconvenience of this of course is that we have to argue about Luna's reflectivity in order to make the shadow infilling case. Obviously there is no reason why it can't be at such a level to fulfill both cases, but qualitatively and to the straw men employed by the conspiracists, it sounds as though we're arguing Luna isn't particularly reflective in this case, but very reflective in other cases. They could accuse us of contradiction. A better response would be to point out that Earth is even brighter than Luna and yet we aren't blinded as we walk down the street.

Indeed. This isn't a fact, but merely a statement of the conditions necessary for the conspiracy theory to not be false. He hasn't actually given us any facts, merely possible implications of other facts. He clearly has no clue what a fact is, much less how the scientific method works. Of course, at this point we ask about the nature of a "radiation oven". It sounds like he's saying they put them in an ACME Moonrock Faking Machine.

[/quote]

We could also point out that his statements about the date of invention of computer chips is wrong. We could also point out that the largest and most powerful computers today are still housed in large air conditioned buildings. Ironically, this is almost cribbed verbatum by Cosmic Dave.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Anyone who's ever photographed with glass in the picture knows that you don't ever see "purely" through the glass. There is always some scatter or reflection. Whether the glow in the CM windows is scatter or reflection or both, it just doesn't make sense to expect to see only pure black through the window.

The NASAScam author's clear inability to employ even basic reasoning and to mistake insults for facts is certainly one of the most annoying aspects of his contribution to this question. I can't see why anyone takes him seriously. Verbal violence is such a turn-off, even if you agree with what's being said.

Luminance of the lunar surface is only partly the issue. From earth, even from a distance, we see thousands of square miles of reflector. If you're actually on the lunar surface you only get a few square meters of reflector. That's what makes the difference.


The moonrock argument is a perfect example of -- can I say it? -- a deranged mind. The ability of evidence to support one's conclusion is directly proportional to its potential to falsify that same conclusion. To simply postulate a Magic Moonrock Making Machine (whatever a "radiation oven" is) is really grasping at straws. Let's say you take an earth rock and irradiate it. Do you get a moon rock? (Which is to say, do you get a rock that looks like an Apollo sample?) No, you get an irradiated earth rock. Geologists can easily tell the difference.

The prevalence of computers in daily life has given everyone the notion that he understands them intimately, and that the only computers possible are the ones with which he has direct experience. Embedded systems (e.g., flight control systems) are vastly different than the desktops and laptops, and even PDAs, that we use today.

BTW, the AGC could indeed add two numbers, but "multiply" was implemented as a subroutine.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I don't know. I might vote for this guy for that dubious honor.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

We had a discussion on that guy in this thread.

That guy may be way out of his gourd too, but the worst he's inflicting on the reader is the promise to give you all his money and let you kill him if you can prove he's wrong. Not that I plan to take him up on his offer, but it's nice of him to make it. He's not calling me "green" or "brain-damaged" for following a careful process of fact-finding and inference. I'd actually be afraid to meet the NASAScam author in a dark alley.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I think I might enjoy meeting him in a dark alley. (flexes fingers, grins a Kzinti grin). Oops. I didn't type that out loud, did I?


Legal disclaimer: that was a joke. When it comes to dismantling an obnoxious and ignorant person, why take sixty seconds to do physically what can be done mentally in about fifteen? Besides, there's rules 'n' stuff about that. I would never do that. Really.