Are you Phil?

No. Nevertheless your author calls me out also by name. Do you intend to defend your author's claims?

...because he really does provide a few laughs at your expense.

"Providing laughs" is not the exercise. I cannot begin to enumerate the things your author got wrong. I assure you the joke is on him. Are you the author of that site? Are you willing to stand in his place and defend his claims?

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

No you're not. You started the thread and "presented" the link. You're obligated to defend the information you posted.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

She says no such thing.

What is your training and experience in aerospace engineering? Do you have any expert or experiential basis for questioning the time line for the return to the Moon, or its various objectives?

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

Well that's that, Looks like that other guy was correct.

Oh ok.

Well, it was nice meeting you then. Take care. So long.

So you have nothing but juvenile remarks and absolutely no persuasive arguments? Have you even looked at clavius.org?

I have no case but now I am definitely leaning toward the "did not go side" since you are not able to refute this other guy.

I didn't say I was unable to refute him. I'm simply not going to do it on your terms, which seem to be that you get to say whatever you want but not take any responsibility for the claims. You seem to have taken a side in this argument (i.e., that Phil has been "spanked" and that your author's claims are unquestionably valid), but you won't participate in testing whether your side has merit. Sorry, a certain amount of fortitude is required of those who desire their conclusions or beliefs to be taken seriously.

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

If that excerpt of yours is an example, it's very poor rhetorical style and Phil is a much better writer. However, rhetorical style is not relevant. Both Jay and Phil are quite skilled at writing, but even if one of them were to say, "Van Allen Belt not what you think it am. Your argument wrong," that wouldn't matter. What matters is the factual content, and what's been quoted here doesn't have any.

__________________
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!"

That would be a fair analogy only if there had been no significant progress in computer and video game technology in the last forty years, if no one in the meantime had made any efforts toward trying to develop a video game or a pocket calculator, and if developing a typical video game required hundreds of thousands of people working for close to a decade and spending tens of billions in the process.

As it is, computer technology has improved by many orders of magnitude in the last 40 years, while rocket technology is pretty much where it was in the 70's. That's not due to any conspiracy or incompetence, just that Apollo took chemical rockets to their limits early on, and there haven't been any technological breakthroughs akin to those seen in the electronics field.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

And, I suspect, that NASA's total budget over the past 40 years is a small fraction of the total R&D spent by the electronics, computer, and gaming industries over the same period of time.

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

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

Rockets are not computers. Therefore it's simply not right to expect them to evolve identically. Duh.

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

If rocket technology had improved as much as computer technology, then we could each buy a personal rocket backpack for $1000 that could fly us to the Moon and back. The absurdity of that concept indicates that there are sound technical reasons why rocket technology hasn't improved as much as computer technology.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

jimbot: You responded to my post, but you didn't answer my question.

McGowan has made statements about the laser reflectors and the ability to target them from Earth. It's clear that he doesn't think it is possible. I want you to tell us whether you agree or disagree with him and why. Please don't respond with a quote from some other part of that site. I'm only interested in this question right now.

Yes, I did. I even did a little digging to find the unaltered version of this image hosted on Mr. McGowan's site. I found nothing on the site remotely new, innovative, or persuasive arguments.

You did not, however, answer my question.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
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 ►

No takers for that bet Welcome to BAUT, pjwarez.

__________________
"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.

McGowan's October 2009 diatribe is an updated expansion of the one he posted to his site in July 2000 (Dec. 16, 2007, Internet Archive retrieval). The original was discussed on the old BABB in the April 2002 thread, "'Wagging The Moondoggie' by Dave McGowan."

According to the book, You Are Being Lied To: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths, published in 2001, McGowan is a freelance writer hailing from the Los Angeles area.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Urrgh! May I suggest some Elijah Craig, Wild Turkey Rare Breed, or some Woodford Reserve.

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

Does that mean you're prepared to defend it? I assume so, since you've brought the claim from the site into the forum.

Once you've answered the list in tusenfem's message, here's a question for you about this :

If the Apollo astronauts should have been frozen or fried as they go into or out of shadow, please explain why every other spacewalker - both before and after Apollo - has not had this problem.

After all, they would all have gone into and out of shadow as they enter and leave their craft, just like the Apollo astronauts. It looks to me like they had this whole spacesuit temperature thing pretty well sorted out early on.

What a laughable assertion, of course no-one's saying that it was "thrown together" in a "couple of years".

Do all your arguments rely on such dishonesty, or do you have any that you are able to present in an honest, adult fashion?

Phil Plait does make mistakes. He also admits to making mistakes and corrects them. Oftentimes, he leaves the corrected version so that people can fully see that he made a mistake.

This question has been answered.
Note: The moderators have not suppressed your posts. They approved them even if they did not agree with them.
Northern Boy has addressed this one a bit. However, I'm going to go until more detail and JayUtah can go into greater detail still.
The Moon Landings were done at specific times and locations because heat and lack of heat were (and are to this day) a problem.
The suits were not perfectly climate controlled. They were climate controlled to a degree, but limited.
Even a tiny bit of research on your part can show you how the astronauts had to contend with this problem.
The biggest problem we are currently facing with going to the Moon is budget.
This has nothing to do with developing necessary technology-why are you claiming that it does?
I will accept this claim.
Yes, if there was a space race right now- Again- to reach the Moon- We could do it.

But there is no race now nor has there been for a long time.

Welcome to BAUT, jimbot.

McGowan's haphazard use of a unit of measurement only scratches the surface of more serious deficiencies in his scholarship concerning Project Apollo.

Blogger hANOVER fIST thinks highly of McGowan's work.

OK, yes, I will.

So, come on now fella, are you going to "step up to the plate" as I believe it is put in common parlance over in the US, and discuss it?

I'll start out by pointing out that a pure vacuum is not as harsh as you perhaps think that it is. You could actually survive for a short while outside of any sort of suit or ship at all. You'd be a bit of a mess afterwards, but probably still be alive to tell all about it, so why do you think that the Apollo suits were not up to the task?

As has been pointed out elsewhere, a rough calculation of a sphere with a reasonably normal albedo sitting out in space near Earth suggests that it will have an equilibrium temperature a few tens of degrees from zero centigrade, so there's no obvious a priori objection in terms of boiling or freezing. The suits were pressurised to below one atmosphere, so, again, normal-ish material looks to be perfectly capable of keeping the gases in.

Basically, for someone such as me (a non-expert in space science, but an interested amateur who is educated in physics), there seems to be no incredulity needed to see that someone can survive in a space suit. What is it, exactly, that strains your belief?

I'm glad I didn't read all that. how terrible, and he has no understanding of physics at all.

__________________
"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

"The Center for an Informed America"

Informed by who's standards?

Quoting McGowan: "The funny thing is though that he voiced that 'incorrect assertion' just as forcefully and as arrogantly as he voices all the other assertions on his page – which makes sense, I guess, since everything else on his page is incorrect as well."

Phil Plait, like any other human being, occasionally makes mistakes. And he admits them, retracts them, and moves on. Plait and I have often fact-checked each other. Therefore to say that he has said anything "arrogantly" or "forcefully" is without merit. McGowan is simply trying to amplify the appearance of error.

Is McGowan ready to have his own statements judged by the same standard he proposes?

"... it became perfectly clear that the hoax side of the debate was in serious need of a fresh approach and some new insights," and, "I also realized that a far better case could be made than what is currently available on the ‘net." But then he goes on to make the same silly arguments that have been debunked now for decades. How arrogant is that? To presume that one has "freshened" the approach -- by doing the same thing as everyone else.

"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."

Factually incorrect. Boeing has material for the rovers. Grumman has material for the lunar modules. The National Archives has material for the Saturn V rockets. Legitimate authors such as Scott Sullivan had no problem assembling that material together into a coherent compenium of Apollo designs. McGowan did no research; he simply copied the material that's out there already, that makes these claims. That, to me, seems sufficiently "forceful and arrogant" to invalidate McGowan's claims by his own standards.

And that's just on page 1.

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

"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."

Also known as the "I couldn't Google it or find it on Wikipedia, so it doesn't exist!" argument.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Not that I disagree Fazor, but 5 minutes on Google found this and this and this and this.

OK, so I can't quite build my own from those (not down to the part level), but to say they are missing is nonsense.

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

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

All McGowan had to do was say, "I don't understand how space suits work," and he could have saved himself several paragraphs. His claim is nothing more than a recitation of all the things he does not know about science and technology. "I don't understand how it works, therefore it must be fake."

That's the height of ignorance and arrogance.

"And those extreme temperatures of +260° F to -280° F? Not a problem when you’re wearing the magic suit."

Ignorance of heat transfer.

"In addition to providing radiation protection that today’s technology is unable to match..."

Let's be clear: the Apollo space suits do not protect against the kind of radiation McGowan is likely thinking of. That's because McGowan, steeped in his conspiracy lore, likely believes cislunar space is constantly awash in deadly radiation. It isn't. The space suits don't need to block radiation, although they will naturally attenuate heavy charged particles.

This claim is just a straw man deriving from McGowan's mistaken notion of the nature of the universe.

"And it is perfectly obvious from all the photos that the suits were not, in fact, pressurized, because if they were, the astronauts would have looked like the Michelin Man bouncing around on the surface of the Moon."

The Michelin Man is the standard paragon McGowan lifted from the literature he has copied. Unfortunately had McGowan actually inspected a space suit (and it's obvious he had not) he would have been shown the restraint layer built into the suit.

What's sad is that while McGowan dismisses me as "a rather self-important gent," he fails to account for the restraint layer mentioned on my site http://www.clavius.org/techsuit.html . Not only has McGowan failed to "freshen" his approach (Kaysing was the first to come up with the Michelin Man claim), he can't even account for rebuttals that were published five years before his "updated" claims.

Ever go to where heavy machinery is being used? Those big yellow machines employ rubber hoses to convey pressurized hydraulic fluid from pumps and reservoirs to the actuators that operate the equipment. Standard hydraulic pressure for most industrial applications is 3,000 PSI, or about a thousand times the pressure difference across the membrane of an Apollo space suit. Yet under that tremendous pressure you don't see the rubber hoses bulging. Why not? Because of the integrated restraint layer.

In other words, pressure-bearing membranes with incorporated restraint layers have been part of the engineering work for about a hundred years. Just because McGowan hasn't heard of them doesn't make Apollo technology mysterious.

"The magic suits had to perform one other function as well: they had to serve as head-to-toe body armor."

McGowan here refers to micrometeoroid bombardment. He quotes a NASA web site saying that the Moon has been showered with small meteorites. Indeed it has been -- over the course of millions of years. McGowan, like all the predecessors whose work he has ignorantly copied, seems to believe the rate of bombardment is heinous enough to be unendurable. He cannot seem to distinguish a description of bombardment at geological rates from the expected exposure on a three-day mission.

But let's leave aside the fact that McGowan obviously didn't study astrophysics. In fact the suits did provide impact protection by design, in the same fashion that laminated ceramic armor protects the M1 Abrams tank. Physicists discovered that by alternating hard and soft layers (in this case, Kapton and Beta cloth) impact force could be highly attenuated by breaking up the projectile.

Again, a neat fact known to most engineers but lost on our free-lance self-published author from L.A.

"How that applies here is that any penetration in your suit would result in all the air being immediately sucked out."

Nope. If McGowan had studied mechanical engineering, he would know that the rate at which a gas exits a puncture in a pressurized vessel depends on the fluid characteristics of the gas, the pressure difference, and the size of the hole.

Egregiously wrong.

Then McGowan goes on to trumpet his "victory" through a facetious and flippantly-worded advertisement for hiring astronauts. It would be mildly amusing if McGowan weren't simply belaboring his own ignorance.

Elsewhere McGowan charges that NASA's feats are suspicious because no one else has gone to the Moon. But other spacefaring nations have made space suits. And they are made according to the same principles as NASA's Apollo suits. Several nations have been using space suits manufactured by various companies and countries for decades. Does McGowan simply think all that is hogwash too?

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

I've invited David McGowan to come here and defend his claims in person. We'll see what he says.

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