Explain?

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

I googled Project Steve (I wasn't familiar with it) and this turned up:

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Thank you Mr. Van Rijn

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

Yep, that's it. Just in case there was still any doubt.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Well, I don't really have much to add to this discussion except for a quote from Buzz Aldrin: "It would have been a lot harder (given the state of computer technology (no CGI back then) and cinematic special effects) to fake the Apollo missions, then to actually do them!"

People also forget that the race to the moon was actually part of the arms race with the former Soviet Union. The only rocket that was ever built during this time that wasn't designed to launch nuclear weapons was the Saturn V rocket. If this had been an elaborate hoax, don't you think the former Soviet Union would have had something to say about it? Or were they a part of the conspiracy too?

How anyone can believe that these missions didn't take place is beyond my comprehension. That's my two-cents for the day.

Eric

__________________
“Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned like a liberation.” - Albert Einstein

My Astronomy Site
My Geology Site

Many of these people are now saying that the Cold War was a hoax as well. It was at that point I, personally, lost interest in trying to convince them of anything.

Hopefully this isn't too bad of a derail, but what are the major bullet points presented by someone who thinks the Cold War was a hoax?

__________________
See? Because of me, now there's a warning. -Homer Simpson

I am not an expert, but it seems to be 2 main points:

a) The Cold War was a hoax designed to distract us while they (?) were secretly building the New World Order.

b) The Soviets needed wheat, which we gave them in return for their silence regarding the Apollo hoax.

There are so many holes in this (if you'll pardon the painfully obvious) that the level of ignorance required to believe it is about half a tick away from total illiteracy.

Probably a prudent idea, Daffy. LOL

Eric

__________________
“Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned like a liberation.” - Albert Einstein

My Astronomy Site
My Geology Site

I had someone try to get me do some sort of statistical analysis as to whether or not something--I didn't care enough to work out what--could possibly be a coincidence. That's about as much evidence as I've seen. It was argued that it's too political for presentation here, or perhaps that it doesn't fit space and astronomy, but I still think it's relevant.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

From the Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 1 web page in question:

"There is, therefore, no way for the modern scientific community to determine whether all of that fancy 1960s technology was even close to being functional or whether it was all for show."

Weeelllll. Lets see...

-- If you want to spend some money, you too can build your very own Apollo guidance computer which operates exactly like the flown guidance computers:
Block I Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC)
Build Your Own Apollo Guidance Computer

-- Thousands of citizens actually watched with their own eyes as each Apollo mission was launched. That kinda suggests that the hardware was "functional" to say the least.

-- And of course there is the Apollo Image Archive which is roughly in the middle of its project of scanning and digitizing all of the Apollo mission photographs:
Apollo Image Archive
AIA currently has processed about 7500 out of approximately 30,773 Apollo photographs. The photographs reveal extraordinary detail which the end user could further enhance by using software such as PixInsight. See this example of what could be done since the digitized data is in 16-bit format and since the Hasselblad B&W and color scans are at 200 and 100 pixels/mm respectively. This provides enough spatial information for image deconvolution. See this really neat example:
PixInsight — Deconvolution of a High-Resolution Lunar Image

And that is just the tip of the iceberg, so to say.

Anyway, there are tons of data in the form of videos, photographs, logs, transcripts, science reports, the actual moon rocks, et cetera which fully support the for the modern scientific community to determine that the Apollo missions were indeed real and as documented and shown. But then again, 12 jurors found O.J. innocent even though there was a mountain of evidence proving his guilt. I would suggest that the hoax believers are about as bright as those 12 jurors.

:-)

__________________
Check out my web page of my own processed versions of Apollo mission photos: Apollo ISD Photos

That is the coolest thing ever!

The only problem with jurors is that they are not (for the most part) scientists. They are prone to make decisions based on feeling and not on the evidence. That might be the only problem I have here. You can't compare the scientific process to the modern justice system because they are like apples and oranges.

Of course, in the case of "Wagging the Moondoggie", even the jurors (again, for the most part) would probably see through that. At least I hope they would.

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

Yeah, and the nuclear-tipped Nike missiles that were stationed in my back yard must have been part of the hoax, too.

__________________
I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. -- Jimmy Hoffa

HA!!! I love you Plaid.. That's Freaking Cool!!

it's definitely possible to do a geosynchronous satellite at the prime meridian and equator. No problem there.

Only one half of the planet could see it though. Two of those and you would never get lost. Three might be better to allow for local topography not to block out the star if you happened to be near 90 degrees from those meridians.

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

Interestingly enough, a 4-hour period for a circular orbit is about 4000 miles up (6422 km, or 3990 mi if I converted correctly). This satellite in a properly aligned polar orbit would harmonically cross the equator 12 times a day at 30° increments of longitude (and visible every 4 hours from most points on earth - no need for multiple satellites!). A navigator would be able to reset the ship's clock by timing when the satellite crossed the equator if he knew his latitude, as well as finding his longitude in the same reading. The math would be simple enough to fit on a small card for an equator-synchronous reading, and really not too hard for any other time assuming the navigator already knew his latitude. Knowing the precise time would allow daytime longitude calculations from sun angle if we assume the satellite was only visible at night.

Really, a fascinating and prescient prelude to GPS, and by some metrics much more efficient than our present constellation.

However, during discussions in the late sixties about very large thermonuclear weapons, I heard this. "We've designed, but not built, a 100 megaton bomb that can be carried by a B-52. A gigaton bomb would require something like a C-5. A teraton bomb would require a much larger aircraft or a Saturn V." It may have not been designed as a weapon, but someone was looking at the possibility.

__________________
"Everybody's playing the Game
But nobody's rules are the same
Nobody's on nobody's side." (Tim Rice)
No matter how strong, or brave, or pure of heart you may be; sometimes the dragon wins!

Were teraton-scale bombs actually even remotely considered as weapons? That's 17,000 Tsar Bombas, and it would have to weigh many times even the Saturn V's S-1C takeoff thrust (let alone suborbital capacity).

Sort of. The missilies were real of course.
But in both governments the same jewish, illuminated Reptiloids were in charge, and wouldn't have started a real war.

__________________
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"

what does that even mean?

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

Yeah, I thought Reptilians followed the Space Pope.

__________________
See? Because of me, now there's a warning. -Homer Simpson

Correction: David McGowan doesn't know how to tell whether the Apollo technology was close to being functional. But that's simply an argument from incredulity; McGowan is an untrained, inexperienced amateur with no discernible understanding of space engineering.

The AGC replicas are a prime example. There is little chance the brains behind Apollo anticipated how common and capable computer technology would eventually become. Today a programmer of modest skill can write an emulator. And MIT will happily hand you the source code to Colossus and Luminary.

Thousands of ordinary people actually saw the Saturn V fly. Subsequent generations of engineers can verify the designs of the various components -- it had guidance, propulsion, structure in easily-understood ways. But the fact that it flew is proof of functionality. You can't blue-screen real life.

Even simple things like remote end of Ed Fendell's ground-commanded television are documented. The signal formats and circuit diagrams are preserved in period documents. Anyone from an electronics club in the 1960s would have been able to wire it up. What's so hard about, "When your circuit decodes this signal, turn on an electric motor?"

Last time I was at NASM they had an Apollo CSM guidance platform unshipped and available for walk-around inspection. From training and experience I know what to expect in a guidance platform. I wasn't disappointed: it was all there in its nice sturdy frame. Ditto the PLSS. To some people a cutaway PLSS is just a jumble of little tubes, tanks, and wires. To the experienced engineer there is the O2 system, the thermal system, the power system, and the scrubber system. It's all there in its compact glory.

That's not limited to engineers. The layman looking at the intricate workings of a tracker-action pipe organ may find his head swimming. To the experienced organ builder, all is in order. That is his trade, and he sees the complexity as the same simple machine repeated over and over: trackers, levers, bell cranks -- one for each key and pedal.

There are thousands of airmen and aviators who look at the Apollo docking hardware and brighten with recognition. "Hey, I know that!" The capture mechanism was borrowed from in-flight refueling systems.

McGowan seems to be following in the footsteps of the late James Collier. But at least Collier attempted to inspect the hardware and ask questions. I see no evidence in McGowan's writings that he has taken the least effort to play with any Apollo hardware or to query any knowledgeable expert. Collier was arrogant too, but at least he was arrogant largely only in misinterpreting what others had told him about what he had seen. McGowan is arrogant in the sense that he seems to sit on his fanny in Los Angeles and copy others' work without any significant first-hand effort, and from that "lofty" vantage point cast aspersions on a body of work that is informedly accepted as valid by the unanimity of practicing experts. There are several fine universities in the Los Angeles area. McGowan could easily have taken his question to any of those and spoken to people who do this kind of engineering for a living.

But Center for an Informed America is not an educational organization. It is a political organization. McGowan isn't a teacher; he simply wants attention. You don't get attention by saying everything's okay. You get attention by waving your hands and telling people there's something wrong, even if you yourself don't know that.

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

I have to agree with Gillianren that being a conspiracy theorist has nothing to do with being right brained. There are many conspiracy theorists who are quite eloquent in their gross misrepresentation of reality. Verbal skills are products of the left brain which is better at handling symbols.

I believe that the traits required by conspiracy theorists include the following:
Scientific Illiteracy (needed for the inconsistency of their theories with current day science)

Arrogance (needed to think that they know more than the experts do in a subject that they have never studied)

Intellectual Dishonesty (needed to selective ignore large amounts of facts that contradict their arguments)

If you notice, Mr. McGowen and jimbot (assuming that they are not the same person) have these traits in great abundance.

Actually, skills with grammar are left brained, which means that you also have left brained abilities. Incedentally, right brained functions can include complex tasks such as physically controlling an airplane and even reading the primary flight instruments (although many other flight related tasks are left brained).

Given those criteria - do you think those who profit, such as Hoagland and Sibrel - are knowingly lying, or genuinely deluded?

Sibrel at least knows damn well he is lying. I've caught him out myself and his responses come across far more as deliberate deception than any form of delusion.

__________________
"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.

This may qualify for off-topic, but I'm still interested to see whether Phil was spanked.

Photos or it didn't happen.

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

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

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

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

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

Mr. McGowan has added two more chapters to his discussion:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo7.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo8.html

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Meanwhile, here's a rebuttal to a bunch of his claims in the earlier text:

 It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three & each rocket ship would be taller than New York s Empire State Building [almost º mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.

Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon

The key word here is "directly". Von Braun is referring to a mission mode known as direct ascent, where one huge rocket takes off from the Earth, lands on the Moon, takes off again, and comes back to Earth. That's very different from the approach that was eventually chosen, which involved a separate spacecraft specifically for landing on the Moon.

As it turns out, however, NASA doesn t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don t have any of it.

Not true. The tapes missing were the ones recorded for Apollo 11 by the Australian tracking stations. That's all.

Given the complete lack of air resistance, shouldn t things actually fall faster on the Moon?

Um, no.

Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.

Not true. It's all on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center.

As it turns out, authentic Moon rocks are available right here on Earth, in the form of lunar meteorites.

True, but in far smaller quantities than the 800+ pounds brought back by Apollo. And the only way we know these are lunar meteorites are by comparing them to the Apollo samples - the first one was only identified in 1982.

The problem, alas, is that the only known source for  authenticated Moon rocks is NASA, the very same folks who are known to occasionally hand out chunks of petrified wood.

There's no evidence that NASA has anything at all to do with the Dutch "moon rock," or in fact that any American ever claimed that it was in fact a Moon rock.

It appears then that having a  control rock wouldn t really be of much help after all, since nearly 90% of the alleged Moon rocks that we would want to test don t seem to be around any more.

The missing Moon rocks are those given as gifts to governments around the world. The total weight of them all combined is under 2 pounds. There are still over 840 pounds of Moon rocks available for study.

For at least two decades now, since the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope, we have been promised dazzling images of the lunar modules sitting on the surface of the Moon.

Only the hoaxers have ever claimed that Hubble could image the lunar modules. Anyone who knows the first thing about optics knows it's impossible.

In March of 2005, Space.com boldly announced that a  European spacecraft now orbiting the Moon could turn out to be a time machine of sorts as it photographs old landing sites of Soviet robotic probes and the areas where American Apollo crews set down and explored."

NASA can't be held responsible for what journalists claim. SMART-1 was never going to get detailed images of the Apollo landing sites.

Who knew, by the way, that the European Space Agency had the technology and the budget to send a spacecraft off to orbit the Moon? Who knew that the Europeans even had a space agency? I wonder, given that they obviously have the technology to send spacecraft to the Moon, why they haven t sent any manned missions there? I would think that it should be fairly easy to send some guys to at least orbit the Moon & right? I mean, all they have to do is add a couple seats to the spacecraft design that they already have and they should be ready to go.

Who would believe that someone writing about the space program would be so ignorant as not to know that Europeans had a space agency? Who would be so ignorant as to think the only difference between an unmanned spacecraft and a manned one is the number of seats you put on it?

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.