• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cavorite said:
The Gish gallop continues...

The descent stage wasn't "obliterated" for the same reason a runway isn't shredded by a Harrier jet taking off - the force needed to take off was not sufficiently large to overcome the stuctural integrity of whatever was underneath.
Click to expand...

Interesting point about Harrier (and other people use helicopters for the same example) but in the end it fails.
Firstly a harrier jet never takes off from a ricketty platform supported by 3 legs, widely spread and not under the point of lift off. They take off either from concrete on top of impacted earth or from specially constructed reinforced runways on a ship - that presumably are engineered to cope with such stresses.
Secondly, a harrier jet and helicopter depend on lift heavily on the movement of atmosphere to supply support and lift. So a helicopter certainly won't work on the moon. Nor would a harrier jet, although probably something not entirely dissimiliar to a harrier jet might work. A harrier jet is still very dependent on lift and/or support for its wings. And I assume that a harrier jet has a ceiling that once the atmosphere is too thin it can go no further.

In the end, I don't think you can get past Newton's 3rd law and you to sending an equal and opposite force down on whatever you lift off from and frankly I don't think something with this structure has the capacity not to collapse in the middle
apollo_02.jpg


Although admittedly this was taken on earth, how heavy were those suits again?
 
Well the Descent Stage could support the wight of the Ascent Stage. To take of fthe engine in the Ascent stage would need to produce enough thrust to lift the weight of the Ascent Stage. Why would that destroy the Descent Stage that had been supporting the same weigh all the time it was on the surface?

As you don't seem to know that the LM had 4 legs, not 3 I guess you don't know how it was conmstructed or how strong it was.

Why would they build even a 'mock up' for a hoax that wouldn't look like it worked?

Why would it fool all the worlds engineers and rocket scientists if it is so obviously not up to the job?
 
Mashuna said:
Nice work with the graphs and pictures there LGR. They really give the appearance that you've actually done some proper analysis, while still allowing you to just make stuff up to support your position.
Click to expand...
you're right. I think I have screwed up the phases. Since no one has picked me up yet I will remove it to reconsider.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Well the Descent Stage could support the wight of the Ascent Stage. To take of fthe engine in the Ascent stage would need to produce enough thrust to lift the weight of the Ascent Stage. Why would that destroy the Descent Stage that had been supporting the same weigh all the time it was on the surface?

As you don't seem to know that the LM had 4 legs, not 3 I guess you don't know how it was conmstructed or how strong it was.

Why would they build even a 'mock up' for a hoax that wouldn't look like it worked?

Why would it fool all the worlds engineers and rocket scientists if it is so obviously not up to the job?
Click to expand...
3 legs bad, four legs hardly better.

re all scientists and engineers point. Science is based on trust
All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
Click to expand...

But futher it must speak to the nature of humans and human society. It is not entirely clear to me at the moment but I think you could apply some of the logic that Richard Dawkins used in the Selfish Gene where he discusses Evolutionary Stable Strategy. In short, it basically says that although some types of behaviours, interactions and negotiations may not be the most optimal for all involved, they are stable, in the sense that deviations from these patterns will tend to be punished.

So I think it is inevitable that conspiracy type behaviour will develop in humans because it has been evolutionary successful to cheat out-groups. Once conspiracy behaviour develops it begins to understand the forms it must take for it grow and prosper. It understands it must punish those that seek to thwart it and to try and control the commanding heights of information. It understands it must use both carrots and sticks.

Perhaps the best example is gangs. Gangs generally have hazing and initiation ceremonies that seem distasteful to outsiders - this very distastefulness is a means to induce solidarity, they create benefits and support for members and punishment for people who break ranks. A gang probably doesnt actually benefit its members as opposed to not being in a gang - and it certainly doesn't benefit society as a whole. But it is a very stable institution, it protects itself and can always recruit.

Also these things develop slowly. Most likely Galileo and Copernicus had no idea the path they were taking humanity down and acted from the very best of motives.
 
Well, the LM was built by Grumman, not by NASA.
Grumman and their engineers thought it could do the job they designed it to do.
ALl the Specs are alvailable for any other engineers to look at and check.
Engineers that worked on APollo worked on later projects and trained later generations of engineers who now work on space prtojects.

If the LM didn't work as described then why would any later projects the engineers worked on?

Why didn't later engineers spot that the LM wouldn't work?
 
little grey rabbit said:
So leaving aside the fact that there seems to be an intense focus of light in the middle of the shot, you can tell by the limited spectra that it is shot under artificial light.

A typical fluorescent light has this spectra
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Fluorescent_lighting_spectrum_peaks_labelled.png

Whereas sunlight is far fuller
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Solar_Spectrum.png

You have to remember what we see as moon light is reflected light, but what you experience of the moon's surface is direct sunlight that would be more intense even that midday at the equator.
Click to expand...

You cannot spectroscopically analyze a picture. You can take a picture of a spectrograph, but not vice versa. Solar radiation on the Moon is 30% higher than what makes it to the Earth's surface.
 
little grey rabbit said:
A gang probably doesnt actually benefit its members as opposed to not being in a gang - and it certainly doesn't benefit society as a whole.
Click to expand...

If you live in a neighborhood where everyone but you is in a gang, then it's probably better for you to join one of them.

The lesser of two evils, at any rate.
 
little grey rabbit said:
So leaving aside the fact that there seems to be an intense focus of light in the middle of the shot, you can tell by the limited spectra that it is shot under artificial light.
Click to expand...

So, OK, leaving aside the pool of light reflected from the white spacesuit, exactly what limited spectrum do you mean, and how did you measure it?
 
little grey rabbit said:
It is blatantly obvious that a squat frame like that won't cast a long thin shadow. If and I repeat IF the Apollo 11 is the same as Apollo 17.

If someone has something better, let them post it here.
Click to expand...

How about the geometry of right triangles?

The length of the shadow is close to the length of the hypotenuse. The hypotenuse gets longer as the smallest angle gets smaller, regardless of the size of the smallest side.

The critical angle gets smaller as the sun gets closer to the horizon and the light hits the platform at a shallower and shallower angle. The hypotenuse gets longer.

As long as the surface stays flat, the shadow will continue to grow.
 
little grey rabbit said:
In the end, I don't think you can get past Newton's 3rd law and you to sending an equal and opposite force down on whatever you lift off from and frankly I don't think something with this structure has the capacity not to collapse in the middle
Click to expand...

Oh, well, if you don't THINK it can happen, then it must be impossible.

So, in the billions of years before you were born and became the arbiter of all things possible and impossible, was anything possible or was nothing possible?
 
My car didn't start this morning (it's -30 outside). The "you should start because I believe you should" argument didn't change the reality of the situation.

A jumpstart from the other car did.
 
I don't think you can get past Newton's 3rd law and you to sending an equal and opposite force down on whatever you lift off from and frankly I don't think something with this structure has the capacity not to collapse in the middle
Click to expand...
So for example it takes 100lb of thrust to lift a 100lb object. How would that break whatever the 100lb object was sitting on? it's already supporting 100lb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom