Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick1000 said:
I have a great idea! You guys decide on the abort stuff. Since I am neutral, I'll prove it by leaving this topic. Bicker amongst yourselves about this nonsense. No more telescope debates for me. Whatever the group decides, fine.
Click to expand...

You really need Monty Python's black knight as your avatar. It will save new readers a great deal of confusion.
 
nomuse, if that is how you feel about the astronauts' popular writings, as you are so concerned for their well being, I suggest you write to them. Write to the astronauts nomuse and encourage them to tighten up their acts, clean up their acts, as crazy HBs like Patrick actually quote them and use the astronauts' own words, their very words, in demonstrating said astronauts are utterly full of Borman poop.
 
Last edited:
I have another great idea nomuse, next time you engage an HB type in debate, why not suggest to him/her that you do not accept statements made by the astronauts in their coauthored books as valid, and so such statements are not admissible as evidence in support of any given position. I am sure you will be viewed as most credible and fair, not to mention a person having the greatest confidence in the astronauts' ability to present their stories in such a way that they do not get nailed for being participants in the biggest fattest space rip off of all time.
 
And once again Patrick shows how he prefers to substitute verbal expressions (which can be massaged) for technical descriptions.

We didn't say abort was impossible. Never said. Not by anyone. We said abort wasn't IMMEDIATE. It isn't SIMPLE. And it doesn't look like you described it.

The closest thing to your abort scenario is the minimum-time abort which can only be performed early in the TLI coast; it kills all of the luna-ward velocity and the spacecraft essentially falls back to Earth. Since this is not a powered return the time for return is essentially half the orbital period of an orbit with an apsis at the location of the abort. The preferred early abort scenario is the minimum fuel abort which shortens the ellipse until it no longer extends to the Moon; this takes even longer.
 
Patrick1000 said:
nomuse, if that is how you feel about the astronauts' popular writings, as you are so concerned for their well being, I suggest you write to them. Write to the astronauts nomuse and encourage them to tighten up their acts, clean up their acts, as crazy HBs like Patrick actually quote them and use the astronauts' own words, their very words, in demonstrating said astronauts are utterly full of Borman poop.
Click to expand...

The astronauts are not in error. The error lies with people who have no understanding of appropriate level of discourse -- when a work is intended to be read as absolutely literal and is technically verifiable, and when it is not appropriate for that use.
 
speak for yourself

Speak for yourself nomuse. Don't pull that bogus jive on me. Look at the posts of others. Knock off the WE stuff. You may say "I nomuse" didn't deny the abort option. The others did. Sorry 'bout that, but my messages weren't for you. THEY WERE FOR THE OTHERS WHO DID DENY THE ABORT OPTION. And quit trying to defend them. Let them fight their own battles, you embarrass them all the more.
 
Also nomuse, I warned them about their impatience.

If you want to debate me fine fine, but please Mr. Integrity, when your side falters, fight fair. Your use of "WE" is MOST INAPPROPRIATE.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I have another great idea nomuse, next time you engage an HB type in debate, why not suggest to him/her that you do not accept statements made by the astronauts in their coauthored books as valid, and so such statements are not admissible as evidence in support of any given position. I am sure you will be viewed as most credible and fair, not to mention a person having the greatest confidence in the astronauts' ability to present their stories in such a way that they do not get nailed for being participants in the biggest fattest space rip off of all time.
Click to expand...

So are you saying "Throw away the chart, I know what Doctor Smith told the family and that's what I will use to plan my treatment?"

How can you not understand the distinction? It isn't "falsehood," it is the kind of material provided.

A biography of an astronaut is text. In fact, it is usually verbal in form; interviews, dictation, story-telling.

The stats of the CSM are in a numeric table. And, yes -- there can be and often are errors made on that table. But because as much as possible is presented numerically, it is possible to compare with other numeric sources, or perform calculations within the tabled values (such as, adding individual component masses given to see if they add up to total system masses).

Technical data is a form and format allowing examination, use, and correction. Story-telling is not designed for this purpose. It may provide accurate data but it provides less data overall, and what it provides is not tabled as to allow this sort of cross-checking.

There are MANY sources (I've read a half-dozen pdf's just recently) on Apollo abort scenarios, and the performance of the spacecraft that dictate them. They are consistent with each other and consistent with other information. If ONE of these sources claimed the CSM could fly faster than light, WHY would I or you or anyone else hold up that one as being the true story and the aggregate data of all the other sources as incorrect?

This is what you are doing (and not just here, but in every subject you have broached) in taking one statement from one book and deciding it is more meaningful than the bulk consensus of the Apollo record.
 
my point about the astronauts' books stands nomuse. Your level of anxiety about their vulnerabilities with respect to jibes from rank and file citizens like myself is more than evident.
 
Enough for now nomuse. We respect one another. I will leave this for a while. I like you too much to become angry now. Thanks for the great challenge today.
 
Patrick1000 said:
“During an aborted lunar mission, there were a few ways to bring a ship in distress home to Earth. The most straight forward was the so-called direct abort, in which a crew on its way out to the moon would turn their command-service module around so that they were riding tail-forward, then fire their 22,500 pound hypergolic engine at full throttle for better than five minutes. The maneuver was designed to bring the spacecraft-which might be traveling at 25,000 miles per hour- to a complete standstill, and then get it moving just as fast in the opposite direction.”

If ApolloG had done that a dozen or so posts back, he would have realized you CAN turn a 1970 vintage spaceship around, turn it on a dime.
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting that Apollo can turn on a dime except you. Is taking 5 minutes to reverse course turning on a dime? Perhaps you should educate yourself and learn that when a spacecraft is moving through space, it is not only engines and thrusters affecting its course and velocity but gravity as well.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
No one is suggesting that Apollo can turn on a dime except you. Is taking 5 minutes to reverse course turning on a dime? Perhaps you should educate yourself and learn that when a spacecraft is moving through space, it is not only engines and thrusters affecting its course and velocity but gravity as well.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Indeed. Sling shooting comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
 
Patrick1000 said:
Enough for now nomuse. We respect one another. I will leave this for a while. I like you too much to become angry now. Thanks for the great challenge today.
Click to expand...

Of all the hilarious crap I read from Patrick1000 in this thread, this one here has to be the most outrageous. That he thinks anyone capable of rational thought would respect him is just plain sad. I guess he has delusions of grandeur. His birther/truther style of debate is only made more cumbersome and irrational when he uses five times the words required to get his point across. Does he actually think that saying "enough for now" is going to shut off comments generated as a result of his grandstanding? :)

Ranb
 
Patrick1000 said:
Mackey, with respect to the understanding of basic science fundamentals, I suggest you check the outcome of the telescope magnification debate just concluded. Admittedly it was a minor point, just a warm up. But we are only getting started here. i encourage you to participate. Let's see what you've got. i have surprises galore for you all.
Click to expand...

At the rate this is progressing I doubt if any of us will live long enough to see any of those surprises.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I should qualify that sts. I do not mean to imply rocks and photos are not evidence "for" or "against" an official story, its just heretofore few have viewed the transcripts, the briefings, the debriefings, the WORDS as the evidence they are...
Click to expand...
No. Plenty of qualified people, including professional historians, have looked at the Apollo record in much greater detail than you. You prefer to quote-mine transcripts and popular accounts because (a) you can trump up normal variances and different contexts in such accounts as "inconsistencies" and (b) because it allows you to avoid dealing with empirical data which requires domain knowledge and true critical thinking. You're no scientist, and it shows.
Patrick1000 said:
I am fond of saying, if you show the narrative untrue, you have shown the rocks to be fraudulent. Likewise, the story is shown to be bogus if the rocks' authenticity is overturned. My approach generally is the former given where my confidences lie.
Click to expand...
There are two problems with this approach. You haven't shown the "narrative" to be fraudulent; your appeals to personal incredulity have failed spectacularly now on three different message boards. Second, you cannot dismiss empirical data because of your convictions regarding this or that event. You can [continue to] ignore it or dodge it, but the data still remains to be explained. It's not my fault you're not qualified to do so.
Patrick1000 said:
I think I mentioned I'll make an effort to be engaging and answer all questions. But the going is slow.
Click to expand...
That is entirely your fault. You spend pages and pages repeating your opinions, laying down barrages of verbiage to evade responsibility for your errors, and taking far more time saying very little than it takes to give straightforward answers to straightforward questions.
Patrick1000 said:
If I say there was a contingency plan in place to abort from a translunar coast vantage and it was considered as the Apollo 8 story is told in the main,...
Click to expand...
Gibberish.
Patrick1000 said:
... I am challenged. which it seems I shouldn't be, but I am...
Click to expand...
You weren't challenged because you said that direct-return abort scenarios existed. You were challenged because you don't understand how they work. You are either unable or unwilling to grasp the distinction; my money is on both.

Patrick1000 said:
... I am hoping to learn something about the rocks from debating ApolooG about them...
Click to expand...
You have shown no ability to learn anything, in any of the threads you have participated in under any of your sock-puppets, in any of the boards in which I have seen you. You are not honest (see questions 1 and 5); you cannot even keep your own story straight; your main interests seem to be hearing yourself talk and patting yourself on the back. You cannot learn anything that way.
Patrick1000 said:
As i mentioned above, I do not plan on converting you or ApolloG
Click to expand...
That is smart. I don't speak for anyone else, but I work in this field, and I can see you have no idea what you're talking about.
Patrick1000 said:
as i am sure you can imagine it is unlikely you would be able to bring me back to your camp, though it's not 100% out of the question, it's very unlikely.
Click to expand...
No, it's out of the question. You are enamored of your own self-proclaimed genius, you believe the Apollo program faked - or you adopt that position in order to perform an extended troll - and you Google up bits of stuff which, like a magpie or other reasonably bright bird, you can assemble into some shiny talking points.
Patrick1000 said:
... So we define our positions here "debating" and perhaps a non poster here or there is swayed,
Click to expand...
You're "debating" in the sense that high-school debaters will say anything to support a position regardless of whether it actually makes any sense or not. The problem is, you can't fool people who have actually taken some time to learn something about this subject.
Patrick1000 said:
... but for me I do not see any hope for my writing leading to public mass conversion. That is a ridiculous notion.
Click to expand...
I agree it is ridiculous. You can't even keep your bragging straight, though, since you previously said "they all [come around]". It turns out, though, that you've managed to convince all of one person: your brother. If he exists, and if he didn't "agree" simply to get you to stop talking.
Patrick1000 said:
... Apollo will tumble and perhaps soon,...
Click to expand...
Fantasy.
Patrick1000 said:
... Just rambling , but I know you are curious sts and I respect your abilities and commitment to this stuff.
Click to expand...
First, I'm amused by your posturing, but not curious about it; you're not the first HB with ego in inverse proportion to clue. Second, you neither understand my abilities, nor respect them enough to enage honestly and answer questions. That bothers me not one whit, but I don't feel obliged to keep pulling your string to hear the same set of prerecorded messages.
Patrick1000 said:
... We are just working from opposite ends. Best, PAt
Click to expand...
No, we're not. I'm a practicing space systems engineer. You're a pretend doctor ranting on the Internet.


Your service life as a cat-toy has expired, but here for the rest of the participants on this thread are the questions that Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/BFischer/BSpassky/Sicilian/etc., etc. has not answered.
 
You are late to the party Ranb and do not understand the point of debate. It had nothing to do with a CSM stopping on a dime. The point of contention was whether or not an abort option existed. I presented a reference from NASA and one from Lovell's book showing the option did exist.

Members from your side of the debate don't seem to like Lovell's description in his own book, as for them, the description lacks credibility. As mentioned above, I could not care less. If they don't like Lovell's description, they may quarrel amongst themselves until a solution is arrived upon. I have no dog in the fight.

So please Rand, why don't you fight with nomuse about this. i'll join in later, at least with respect to the abort issue. I have had quite enough.

Fair enough?
 
Last edited:
Same for you sts. Why don't you bicker with your colleagues on that side. You and nomuse can pen a joint letter to Lovell and tell him to keep his big dumb mouth shut. He's making it hard for you guys to keep people from figuring out Lovell stole their money when he helped sell them tickets to that incredibly dumb Ron Howard film.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom