HBer Eric Hufschmid has posted a jawdroppingly silly 21 page PDF (2 MB) containing page after page showing a complete lack of any research.

Don´t read this PDF if you have just eaten ! (I´m sure that he has read too much Pravda ! )

http://members.aol.com/painfulquesti...loMoonHoax.pdf

21 pages, 2 MB - dated September 22, 2003

I was able to keep my dinner down while reading this, but barely. That is ignorance at its extreme.

The Bridgeport made me laugh...(had one in my garage) :wink:
Not that you guys need any help with this one,here's a quote from WPI..


"The year 1952 brough Mr. John Parsons NC (Numeric Control) milling machine. Parsons worked to attach servomotors to the x and y axis controlling them with a computer that reads punch cards to give it positioning instructions. The reason for devising such a system was to machine complex shapes like arcs that can be made into airfoils for airplanes. This was not a trivial task to attempt with a manual milling machine, so the NC milling machine was born. "

It seems that he/she is also a 9/11 conspiracy believer.

:roll: :roll:

But it could be a joke. on their CNN page at the bottom there is this:

I sent this joker an e-mail rebutting his page, just to see if I could get a response from him. I am not holding my breath.

Ranb

I’ll give him this. At least he identified the pictures with actual NASA numbers, unlike most of the HBers. At least we can see that they are the actual ALSJ pictures before we expose his ignorance. Its more than most of his ilk do.

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Amazing. He actually states that NASA did not test the Lunar lander. What was Spider all about? :-?

By the way, did anyone else notice that on page 8 he actually notes that the lunar regolith does not act like the soil from an Earth desert and that this is supposedly proof that it was faked on Earth?

__________________
Anyone who believes in the warning of the bible (prophecies concerning the end time which is now) shall be benefited from my invention. Because they won't be stupid enough to pass this! -Alex Chiu

Sadly, this belief seems to be prevalent even among people who are not HBer's. I've been in conversations with many people who had no idea about the Apollo 9 & 10 shakedown flights and just assumed that Apollo 11 was the first time the LM had been used.

The HBer's, of course, use this general ignorance to cast doubt on Apollo. Since many folks don't know how the LM was tested, it gives the HBer a way to gain a hearing.

Well, I actually feel dumber for having read that.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Trying to maintain my gastric integrity...

Computer technology was very primitive in the 1960s

He proceeds to point out that modern pocket calculators were more powerful than computers in the 60s. While this is an exaggeration, it is nevertheless a non sequitor since he does not proceed to justify how a pocket calculator was unable to do the necessary calculations required for such a task.

Inferior does not automatically equate to inadequate.

Manufactuing technology was also very primitive

Irrevelant. Just because the components may have been hand made, it does not mean they cannot be made.

How did Americans in 1969 do what nobody can do today?

Ignoring the WTC conspiracy implication, he chooses to rehash the old argument that if we could, we would. NASA does not have a moon program because they are not given the funds to have one.

And, supersonic passenger flight is something that we could once do but cannot do anymore.

The Lunar Lander had never been tested.

It may be anal of me, but I always get annoyed when people refer to it as "the lunar lander". It was called the Lunar Module. To me, it seems like a sign that the person in question does not really know all that much about the subject at hand, or he'd know proper terminology.

His argument is an unbelievable display of denseness. There are so many books on sale that detail the operation and testing of LM, it is criminal for the gimp to have not bothered to read any of them. This is the classic "I don't know, so clearly there's no answer" argument.

He is also bent on the notion that an acceptable test of the LM has not been achieved until it has done the entire mission unmanned. I guess modern airliners are fake.

NASA did not need to test the Lunar Rocket

They obviously were not that confident since they did test it.

Apollo 12 The Stupidest Astronauts?

Why not practice? Better than leaving it to chance.

Why the amazing realism?

To be more useful for training. Duh!

Why in 1962 did Kennedy and the scientists want to cancel the moon race?

This is nothing but baseless speculation and forced motives. The arrogance is Nasascamish!

Dry dust in the Earth's does not leave crisp impression, so why does lunar dust?

He says the soil does not clump. Has he ever tried to compress it?

A sequence of 11 photos from Apollo 17

Fabric memory.

Where are the stars?

So the astronauts in orbit had lots of free time? Tell that to a trained CMP! And if the computers were as crap as he says, then surely the CMPs would have to work hard to keep maintain the spacecraft manually.

And what has a jet flight at night, got to do with a lunar excursion by day?

NASA's rebuttal to Where are the stars?

Someone needs to explain the mechanism of the eye to him. At the bit at the bottom exposes his political agenda.

Most photos taken on the moon are low quality

He explores various more sensible possibilities but then launches into a non sequitor about covering up unwanted details. He can't even get his perspective straight.

Of course, this argument is a stark contrast to other conspiracists who say it's suspicious the photos are of too high a quality. You can't win!

Is this our sun?

I'll bet he's never heard of the term "stopping down". And he is also unaware of the effects in the vicinity of a saturated area.

One particularly laughable remark is "Are these sunrays due to the camera lens? Or due to an atmosphere?" He fails to justify why it's not the first. If it is the first, his argument falls flat. This seems very Percyesque. Subtle innuendo that intends to lead the reader round the corner to the desired conclusions without the author having to commit himself.


The piece is a particularly ignorant piece of work. At least he had the decency to give some proper sources, like ID numbers and links, but his arguments are either purely self satisfying speculation or innuendo. A bit of Percy and a bit of Nasascam.

At http://www.geocities.com/apollofeedback/, he actually writes: "From:"Eric Hufschmid"<PainfulQuestions@aol.com> Subject: Apolloscam

Hello! I think you have the best Apollo-scam site. I can see why the Apollo supporters rarely mention your site and instead criticize the sites that are less intelligent"

LESS intelligent than NASASCAM ??? #-o #-o

You didn't read that page did you? Oh dear! It is mind numbing.

What? We mention it all the time. It's hilarious. BigJim couldn't stop talking about it. He once used one of their "facts" in his signature. In fact someone still does.

Well, I TRIED to read it, but every time I read more than two sentences, I faint. Must be my brain trying to protect me from some gruesome .....

Quite so. Very advanced stuff was being manufactured in those days, like for example: Nuclear Submarines, or closer to AeroSpace, the XB-70 Valkyrie, the Lockheed SR-71 Black Bird, the U-2.......

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Concord

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

But see, since the Concord is not currently flying and no one is building new ones or any supersonic passenger jets, therefore it never existed and all those trips to Europe were a hoax by the French and the British to make us think they had the technology!

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

It's DataCable. He's the one with a quote of Nasascam in his signature. It's the one that demonstrates the hilarity of the freak's knowledge of orbital mechanics.

For those of you who endured Plautus Satire's X-class solar rant on the Apollo-hoax Yahoo group, this is obviously where he got many or most of his arguments. I'm not going point-by-point on this one. Maybe page-by-page:

pg. 1
Computers were not as primitive as he suggested. In fact, the AGC was a 1961 or '62 design. By 1969 it was already obsolete, or rather no longer leading-edge. Commercial computers involving integrated circuits -- not just transistors supplanting tubes -- were readily available.

Bridgeport hand mills were state of the art in your run-of-the-mill (pun intended) machine shops. Companies like Boeing, Grumman, McDonnell-Douglas, and North American were using then state of the art manufacturing technology that went far beyond hand-cranked mills.

pg. 2
Modern NC mills are not as simple as suggested. One does not just load a block of metal and push the button. The NC program must be written, or generated from a 3D model, and the limitations of the machine must still be taken into account. For example, even the 5-axis machine pictured cannot bore a right-angle inside corner. There are still fixturing limitations too.

The Boeing 747 was produced with 1960s technology, ironically at the same time Boeing was making Saturn V stages. I suggest this author is wildly out of touch with what was possible in the 1960s.

The comment about steel buildings being compromised by fire tips his hand. Any structural engineer can explain why steel buildings collapse in a fire, and why several have. Go talk to firefighters; they'll explain why they're more apt to run into a wood-framed building to save lives than into a steel-framed building. Wooden structural members, ironically, often survive fires where steel ones don't.

Then there's the typical, "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we therefore [fill in blank with some impossible task]." That's a fairly naive approach to engineering that assumes techniques are universally applicable. Space engineering is in every airliner ever made and in a host of other products. But we also have to consider cost. Not everyone is willing to pay to have space engineering in his toaster or automobile.

pg. 3
Modern software is highly complex and exhibits behavior more associated with chaotic systems. If the author were required to engineer software to the same rigorous standards as aircraft or spacecraft, he would find he would be unable to make as many mistakes. There is much greater tolerance in the industry for defects in software than for defects in man-rated hardware (and software). Obviously this author has never had to work on critical systems.

And just as obviously this author knows nothing about flight test. To suggest that the spacecraft should have been tested unmanned through the whole mission profile requires that the spacecraft be engineered to do that completely autonomously. This greatly complicates the design. Further, the purpose was to create a vehicle to land a man on the moon. If that is its objective, it's quite appropriate to require that man to act as its pilot.

The requests for specifications for the lunar module are red herrings. NASA will happily provide detailed specifications and descriptions of the lunar module -- amounting to many hundreds of pages -- upon request.

pgs. 4,5
More misconceptions about testing.

pg. 6
Vague handwaving about simulations.

pg. 7
At least he's honest about the fact that he's guessing.

pg. 8
Moisture is not needed for impressibility. The bombardment that creates the dust and erodes craters happens over millions of years, not just in two and a half years.

pg. 9
Dragging your landing gear doesn't create an impression, nor should it.

pg. 10
The author seems to arbitrarily accept Surveyor photos as genuine while rejecting Apollo photos. No explanation given.

What do you suppose those rocks are sitting in?

pgs. 11-14
Various flag arguments. The author apparently doesn't understand the concept of fabric memory.

pgs. 15
The author ignores the difference between night and day.

pg. 16
The author handwaves around the problem of sunlit terrain. Go outside. Crane your neck upwards as far as you can. Can you still see terrain at the bottom of your field of view?

pg. 17
Total ignorance of the principles and limitations of photography. The most expensive camera in the world can still get dust on the lens, and the most expensive lens will still suffer catadioptric effects.

The author complains that the wide-angle lenses distorted the picture and says NASA should have provided lenses that didn't do that. Clearly the author doesn't understand that it is impossible to do both.

pg. 18
The "studio light" argument. In connection with Plautus' arguments I showed pictures that illustrated how studio lights behave the opposite way.

pg. 19
More ignorance about testing.

pg. 20
More paranoia about simulation.

pg. 21
Handwaving about plume effects, no understanding of fluid dynamics.

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

Hi everybody! I am the person who wrote that Apollo document that you are complaining about.

Well, today the Genesis spacecraft crashed. Technology has advanced far beyond the days of Apollo, but NASA is still having major problems. Also, Europe -- and now Israel -- have failures just putting satellites into orbit.

JayUtah makes a remark about how I believe the WTC was destroyed with explosives. JayUtah wrote:

Any structural engineer can explain why steel buildings collapse in a fire, and why several have.

Well, JayUtah, can you name one steel framed building (not a tool shed) that collapsed from a fire? Can you find one structural engineer who will explain how fire brought down Building 7 and both towers? FEMA claims they don't know why Building 7 collapsed. FEMA must not realize that "any structural engineer" can explain it.

If you guys are as smart as you claim to be, why don't you explain how Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed?

Or, if you guys are too dumb to explain the collapse, what makes you sure you are smart enough to explain my complaints about Apollo?

JayUtah will like these remarks:

If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we explain why Building 7 collapsed?

Or how about:

If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we defend ourselves from 19 guys who are lousy pilots?

It is easy to fool the majority of people, but scams cause some people to become disillusioned with the nation. We need to stop these scams and start doing something useful. The world is a mess, and these scams seem to be making our situation worse by encouraging corruption, crime, and apathy. We need better governments and better behaved citizens.

__________________
Can you handle different viewpoints?
www.EricHufschmid.net

Good luck.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Certain parts of the Earth are currently a bit chaotic, but the real mess is in your little HB, conspiratorial world. Flinging unsubstantiated claims around does not make for a convincing, let alone persuasive, argument.

Welcome to the board. However with remarks such as those quoted above, it appears it will be a short stay.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Technology has advanced far beyond the days of Apollo, but NASA is still having major problems.

Explain how you drew the conclusion that the Genesis hard-landing is a "major problem". It seems that the spacecraft performed 99% of its mission.

JayUtah makes a remark about how I believe the WTC was destroyed with explosives.

I made no mention of explosives nor of the WTC.

In the version of your essay dated Sept. 22, 2003 which I reviewed, you wrote on page 2
You made no specific mention of WTC, nor of explosives. Nor in my response did I make any mention of explosives nor of any specific building. I wrote
Well, JayUtah, can you name one steel framed building (not a tool shed) that collapsed from a fire?

Sure, we had one do that here in Salt Lake City just last month, a furniture factory. The steel trusses failed and the roof caved in. I watched it from an overpass.

The most vivid example I can think of is Nichols Gymnasium on the campus of Kansas State University. The building was buttressed stone supporting a steel interior frame. The stone shell survived but the interior steel frame was weakened and collapsed.

If you guys are as smart as you claim to be, why don't you explain how Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed?

Straw man. Your original point was generally made and generally refuted. Drilling in on one particular example does not address the original general point. The WTC 7 collapse is not confidently explained, but that's only one ambiguous example among a body of well-understood behavior, including WTC 1 and 2 whose collapse is not anomalous, and the civil engineering literature has been filled to overflowing with analysis of the failure and what to do about it. Steel softens at high temperatures well below the melting point. This phenomenon is hammered into engineers (and firefighters) early in their training.

Or, if you guys are too dumb to explain the collapse [of WTC 7], what makes you sure you are smart enough to explain my complaints about Apollo?

Because they are different problems. There is no implied connection between them. The fact, for example, that some murders remain unsolved does not preclude the ability of detectives to solve other murders conclusively.

As I said, "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we do X?" is generally not good logic because it implies a qualitative equivalence between moon landings and X that may not be valid. It was a faulty argument when you argued it before, and it's faulty now that you bring it up again.

The question is whether you are capable of defending your allegations regarding Apollo. If you want to talk Apollo, let's talk Apollo.

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

Yep. Saw the huge amount of smoke from my house. Then caught the rest on TV. I can say without a doubt that it happens after that. :-?

I was on the North Temple overpass watching through my telephoto camera lens.

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

Actually, it has been explained, but you have to do a little research. Heaven forbid. And have an engineering degree or two

Building 7 burned for 7-8 hours. From an article analyzing the structural steel of the building,

"Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge."

This steel is a much poorer quality that than used in the twin towers.

I'll take the word of engineering professors over some non-degreed, non-technical person on some website.



When it comes to the Apollo moon missions, I looked at just one of your articles, Science Challenge 24. You do what all HBs do - mislead your readers.

You show a figure of an astronaut without his helmet. You know what, when his helmet is on he can't look straight up to see dark sky, because his helmet doesn't move and the top of his helmet is covered. You would have seen that if you would have looked at and studied the photo you copied from NASA and put in to your article.

Your reflections of the sunlight are wrong. Sunlight scatters perferentially back to the source, along with the usual diffuse component.

Simple geometry can show you that light could easily enter into the helmets. That is when you use the actual hardware and not some made-up situation.

Why didn't the cameras capture the stars. The shutter was set at shutter speeds of 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, and 1/1000 second. (Took me all of one second to find that on the Internet) Way too fast to capture stars. The point of the moon landings was to explore the moon, not to take pictures of stars. You can do that from Earth.

I guess, we should only handle Apollo and one point at a time. No switch (escape?) to other subjects as long as one item isn't discussed to the end.

Now, one of the silliest, most often repeated claims in the PDF is, that the LM was never tested. Does the author stands to this claim? And can he define "not tested" more narrow - just to avoid evasive manoeuvres by him in case we come up with some proof of testing and he quickly then narrows his definition of testing...

Harald

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

I'll take the word of engineering professors over some non-degreed, non-technical person on some website.

The arguments rejecting FEMA's analysis of the collapse of WTC 7 are almost universally of the form, "It never happened before, so how could it have happened now?" This almost totally ignores the actual evidence of the question. If the actual evidence gives a suitable explanation, it does not require precedent.

As far as I know, WTC 7 included tanks full of diesel fuel that contributed to the thermal loading. Most steel-framed buildings that catch fire do not also have large amounts of high-energy hydrocarbons sitting around.

Your reflections of the sunlight are wrong. Sunlight scatters perferentially back to the source, along with the usual diffuse component.

To clarify, backscatter can leverage specular reflection but it will still occur even on a perfectly lambertian surface. Backscatter is a function of texture while diffuse reflection does not require texture. Yet backscatter is diffuse reflection, in a certain sense. The effect of the phase angle varies the intensity of the light for some unit solid angle.

Why didn't the cameras capture the stars. The shutter was set at shutter speeds of 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, and 1/1000 second.

The camera and stars argument is still the silliest thing I've ever heard. Every photographer laughs his kiester off when I show him that argument. I've shot Ektachrome ISO 160 film with a faithful replica of the 1960s 500/EL prepared by Hasselblad, and I don't get stars. None. Craig Lamson had to use shutter speeds of 15-30 seconds to get any stars on that film.

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

The stars theory always gets me, too. Have any of these people ever tried to take pictures of stars with a standard camera? If they had, they'd know that it's actually pretty difficult... You need a very still camera, and a very long exposure.

__________________
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov

I tried taking photos of stars with ISO 800 at 5s with f/4.5 and got nothing but grain. The argument "someone failed to do X therefore NASA could not have succeeded with Apollo" is the last resort of the factually bankrupt.

I'm not clear on something, is someone trying to link the Genesis crash with the Apollo missions? I don't see the connection. :-?