that loses the information on me being there.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

It still looks to me like the CSM and LM were both in circular orbits, even though the term used is "co-elliptic".

Yes, you're right. The same constant-height-difference math works for elliptical orbits, so the proper term is coelliptical even if the orbits are circles. The elliptical case might be for a contingency rendezvous, now that you mention it. I swear I'm not making this up, but what I'm thinking of is clearly not what I pointed you to -- sorry.

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

Everyone else has already hammered these pretty good, but I still want to say a couple things.

This is a crucial question. You claim that the Apollo missions were "mind-blowingly improbable". What is your basis for that judgment? This seems to be the basis for the rest of your position on Apollo, so it is crucial you address why you think Apollo could not have been done at the time with the technology they claim to have used.

Buried under the vague and inaccurate statement is a grain of truth. The purpose of Apollo was never primarily about science. Science was just a tag-along, a "something to do while we're going" thing. The primary purpose and key justification for it was always political - establishing that U.S. technology was superior to the Soviets'. If that is what you mean by "showboating", then I'll grant you a bit of truth. But in order to pull off Apollo, it required a vast amount of actual science and technology development. That aspect of it was not "showboating", though they learned the hard way they needed to be extra careful.


You misunderstand. Personal knowledge is not evidence, it is subjective and anecdotal. The answer is not for you to tell us what you "know", the answer is for you to show us why you "know". What evidence supports the claim? What led you to decide your position? Video? Pictures? Some lame guy with a book? Some poorly layed out website with blinking, technicolor fonts?

Okay, what evidence do you have that NASA administrators specified, supervised, and otherwised administered a project to fake putting men on the moon? Because that's what's left - they claim they put men on the Moon, there's evidence of men on the Moon, so where's the evidence that the official evidence is fake?

Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that some post-Apollo 11 satellite was used in some manner? Or are you saying you heard after Apollo 11 that what they did for A11 and the rest was use a satellite? And what evidence do you have for the claim? You heard it somewhere? Did you ask your source what evidence they had, or did you just accept their word for it? If you just accepted their word for it, then why do you claim that most people are gullible and only believe the official word because they aren't critical enough? Shouldn't you start by scrutinizing your own sources?

So wait, do you want to have explained what you perceive as anomalies or not? This is the evidence that convinces you, but you won't share it? That isn't fair.

Everything is moderated on this board. Post the links. If they do not violate the rules (which you can look up), they will stay. If they violate the rules (which you really should look up), then they will be removed. But moderating also extends to your claims, as well as your continued membership here. Posting claims and failing to back them up when asked is greatly disapproved.

What he said was "had a rash of debunking thrown at it". This suggests he is not convinced by the explanations offerred, that they are not correct explanations, but just attempts to distract. Of course, he also says he has no expertise, so I have to wonder how he can judge them incorrect explanations.

I think he meant replace "told" with "said", but keep the rest of the sentence.
I suspect he's trying to outcorrect Gillianren.

This is the statement that I am most confused about and would like an explaination.

As would I. My interpretation of Tardis intended argument is, frankly, not very charitable and it would be good to know whether I'd be putting the right words in his mouth before I tear apart my own straw man.

He has fallen to the same trap of "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette: the astronauts never went to the moon, but while they were there they saw space aliens. Sorry, but no amount of avowed open-mindedness compensates for inarguably paradoxical claims. We can leave aside the UFO claims for now, but the key tidbit from that thread is Tardis' belief that the government actively suppresses or undermines "open minded" people.

We have seen conspiracy theorists misuse the phase open minded before. In conspiracy-speak it's a euphemism for accepting claims without question. Most conspiracy theorists don't seem to realize that at least some of their critics have carefully evaluated those claims and have concluded on an objective basis that they're just not as likely to be true as some other claim. That's by no means the sign of a closed mind.

We also saw Tardis offer the notion that some arguments aren't debunkable. I guess this means subjective opinions, but it might mean simply things on which there isn't enough evidence to avoid the suspension of judgment. But sadly we've all seen other conspiracists shift goalposts and burdens of proof in order to create the superficial impression of meaningful doubt.

If I put all this and other points together and simmer for a couple of days, one possible approach starts to take shape.

First, the handwaving FUD about how impossible Apollo would have been. Then the handwaving FUD about how accepting of authority the American public was.

Into the midst of this comes Tardis, the artist with expertise in media production. He knows what fakery looks like, and implies he's seen it in the Apollo material. It looks very much like an attempt at expert testimony. In his description of the evidence he says he has, but won't be providing, we find allusions to what he thinks that evidence shows: stop-motion, wire work, etc. And he wants his subjective interpretation of that material to stand as evidence.

In this respect he is little different from Bart Sibrel, who claims, "I am a filmmaker; I am an expert at making the fake look real." And presumably this allows him and Tardis both to differentiate between the real looking real and the fake looking real. Sibrel so far hasn't been able to do that, and I strongly suspect Tardis can't either. But until he actually presents his evidence there will be no way to know.

When he says we've debunked his evidence, I take it to mean not that he doesn't consider it evidence anymore, but instead that he doesn't consider us an appropriate audience in which to discuss it -- essentially implying that we've prejudicially and closed-mindedly rejected it, so there's no point in supplying it. But until he actually presents his evidence, there's no way to know.

Normally I'd be inclined to give Tardis the benefit of the doubt. If he says he's an expert in media production, let's let him lay out an expert's case. But I'm certainly not willing to accept the argument, "I'm an expert; I know it was fake." Experts demonstrate their expertise by giving detailed arguments, not brief ones. And I'm slightly disinclined to charity after hearing how he has treated everyone else's expertise. If he suggests that all aerospace engineers are lying to cover up Apollo, what keeps us from arguing that all filmmakers are lying to protect conspiracy theorists?

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

Ummmm, me?

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

Remember that a circle is just a special case of an ellipse.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Remember that a circle is just a special case of an ellipse.

Jeff probably knows that, but the scenario I quoted him required ellipses, not circles. He is quite right in pointing out that the ascent and rendezvous orbits were indeed as circular as attainable.

There is a contingency in the flight plan that requires the CSM to maneuver in order to rendezvous with a partially disabled LM ascent stage in an elliptical orbit. The CSM leaves its circular passive orbit and enters an elliptical orbit somewhat congruent with the LM's. The same rendezvous method works, but I'm doubting now whether they were oppositely oriented as I originally said.

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

I will share some visual evidence.

In this video is real NASA footage from Apollo. Now, in my opinion this is strong visual evidence of a hoax. I don't see how this can be officially debunked. I Imagine that the anti conspiracy people don't see anything unusual here.

I can see a rope and pulley system above the astronauts pack as he 'climbs' up onto the LM .....ALSO if you pause the video a few different times in the first 5 seconds, you (me) can actually see the rope. This apparent "pulley system" is visible in another (not posted) film segment when an astronaut descends down the ladder. To me.. it's obvious that the astronaut is hanging in the mid section of a tight rope.

Disregard the audio, This is visual evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJumGjmSjU

It's the antenna on the PLSS

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss104.jpg

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

Please tell us exactly where you can clearly identify ropes and pulleys in that low-res clip. Have you seen the original, uncompressed footage in its complete form?

No, you can see something you have decided is a rope. I can see a PLSS antenna.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

The antenna is not visible in this first segment, as far as i can tell.

You're also not understanding that, while the weight of the astronauts and their equipment was less on the moon, the MASS of those objects didn't change. It was difficult for the astronauts to get used to this at first. When you put 250 earth-pounds of equipment in motion on the moon it doesn't just stop moving when you stop your legs. If you watch some of the video from Apollo 11, for example, you will see Buzz start hopping towards the camera with the intention of moving it, but misjudges his momentum and overshoots where the camera is sitting. Also, because of the change in weight, the astronauts had to compensate for the heaviness of the PLSS, which made it necessary for them to lean further forward to stay balanced, which makes the motion of standing up after falling different. That's what you see in the second part of that clip.

We are used to the way things behave on Earth, with Earth gravity. Your intuition, which is what are you are using to decide these landings were fake, is based soley on your experience on Earth. Your intuition is wrong. As the BA says repeatedly, the Earth is not the moon.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

I can't see ropes...or pulleys.

What I can see is guys that "weigh" some 50 lbs in the lunar gravity using their arm and leg muscles to maneuver around.
Sure, 1/6g "looks" odd, but that doesn't make it fake. Open your mind, try to imagine trundling around in low gravity, with your full strength muscles at hand. Use some imagination...

The antenna is tricky to see at certain angles because it is flat. It's the difference between looking at a butter knife edge on or from the flat side.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

The antenna is not visible in this first segment, as far as i can tell.

It's a blade antenna. If you were to cut 18 inches off of a carpenter's metal tape measure, you'd have an idea what it's like. Seen edge-on it's nearly invisible in video. When it's turned sideways and it catches the sunlight there's a glint. But it's not a tubular antenna that should always been seen equally from every angle.

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

At 1 min 48 in the following clip the astronaut appears to be hanging foreward with his knees bent and appears to be lifted off the ground, swings around as if he has "twirled" at the end of a rope. The 'antenna' is clearly visible in this one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSHFekcXhNQ

At 1 min 48 in the following clip the astronaut appears to be hanging foreward with his knees bent...

This is not Earth gravity.

...and appears to be lifted off the ground...

This is not Earth gravity.

Your intuition doesn't tell you anything useful about this scenario. Where's the proof that this is not lunar gravity at work?

...swings around as if he has "twirled" at the end of a rope.

Show me the rope.

The 'antenna' is clearly visible in this one.

Yes it is, right where I expect to see the PLSS antenna.

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

As I stated in my post above, they leaned forward to compensate for the added weight on their backs. And he is twirling because he lost his balance. And yes, the antenna is clearly visible. Notice how, as the astronauts turns around, the antenna reflects light at different levels of intensity? That's because it's flat. If it was a cable or rope it would have the same refelctivity at all angles to the sun.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

lower gravity effects wouldn't change the way one VERTICALLY balances weight.

I.E.
If you were carrying 200lbs on the back of your shoulders on earth, you WOULD lean slightly forward above your abdomen but you WOULDN'T be inclined to do it wile bending down both knees, unless you wanted to get crushed by the 200lbs.

lower gravity effects wouldn't change the way one VERTICALLY balances weight.

No. Try walking while carrying 30 lbs of books held on your shoulder. Now try walking again with only five lbs of books held the same way. Did you balance any differently?

If you were carrying 200lbs on the back of your shoulders on earth, you WOULD lean slightly forward above your abdomen but you WOULDN'T be inclined to do it wile bending down both knees, unless you wanted to get crushed by the 200lbs.

The 200 lbs would only weigh about 33 lbs on the moon. Are you saying that an adult male can't kneel with a 33 lb pack on his back?

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

If it was a cable or rope it would have the same refelctivity at all angles to the sun.


You mean, "at all angles to the studio lights."

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

They still had Earth muscles when they were on the moon...and they weren't supporting even their normal body weight.

And even the astronauts commented on how far forward they had to lean.

From ALSJ A12 EVA1

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

Why would he need to lean forward????

If a cable was pulling on his Pack, that would be a good reason.


I'm not finding much substance or beef to these balancing arguments.

They just seem to be based on non science.

If my total weight on the moon, including pack, was under a hundred pounds, I would be jumping higher and farther than I do on earth and I wouldn't be worried about going off balance.

Handwaving. It doesn't look right to you so the evidence and numbers we've provided are discarded.

Back to Jay's question then. What proof do you have this is not lunar gravity? We've explained the antenna, we've explained the leaning, we've explained the motion of the bodies. Your handwaving does not make these facts go away. Your intuition on how they should look is wrong. The moon is not the earth.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

Why would he need to lean forward????

because the mass is still the same.

Having the 200lbs on his back means that his CoM is thrown backwards, so he has to lean forwards, but because he is only 1/6 g, the weight of the that mass is only a 1/6 of what it should be allowing him to carry it far easier.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

First off, I watched the "youtube" video (is that the best you can do?), and all I see are horrible, horrible compression artifacts, on an obviously (words, hello?) altered video. This isn't "pure NASA" footage. If you are in the film industry and would contend it is, you should be stripped by your guild of any credentials. It's the equivelant of a nurse grabbing a handful of dirt, injecting it into a patient, and believing it to be morphine. It's so screamingly obvious it's painful.

Actually, this is quite doable on Earth. Not comfortable, but doable. I did it routinely in the Army. Besides being the M-249 SAW gunner for my squad, I also often had the priviledge of carrying cable spindles, as did others in my squad. Throw in a Dragon missile, and I routinely performed a variety of manuevers both horizontal and vertical while carrying in excess of 200 lb. pack mostly high-centered over my shoulders. Not to mention the 50 lb of weapon and ammo hanging on my neck, pulling me forward.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Maybe, if his muscles were impaired as well.

So if you were on the moon you believe you would be able to perform in ways that you cannot here on earth. You would have the appearance of being stronger. Yet when you look at the video of an astronaut jumping up off the ground after falling over, or pulling himself up a ladder using his hands, it must be wires???

And the astronauts did jump higher on the moon then they could on earth. Watch the video where they jump up onto the first rung of the LM ladder.

Thank you for providing the answers to your own arguments.

And you don't have to take our word for it, you can perform the leaning experiment yourself. Get a back pack and load it with 200 lbs. Put it on, then have somebody measure how far forward you are leaning. Now get in a pool and make the same measurement. I think you'll find you have to lean farther forward in the pool.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

Spock, is that you?

Actually, with statements like this, I smell trolling. That, or a complete and utter lack of an even remedial grasp of science and basic principles. If so, and you're utterly unwilling to learn, and instead prefer to judge the science while acknowlegding you have no idea what you're actually talking about, you're probably better off with the hoax nutters.

As I said, I smell troll. Gonna watch from a distance for a bit

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher