• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fundamental point Robrob is that......

Robrob said:
Which were essentially powered kites. Not the least bit similar to jet aircraft much less rockets.
Click to expand...

The fundamental point Robrob is that a bicycle is a much more sophisticated , much more complex machine than an airplane or rocket..Once you understand that, you are home free......
 
Captain_Swoop, with all due respect.....

Captain_Swoop said:
How would he see stars from inside a lit command module? Try looking at stars out of your window at night with the room lights turned on.
Click to expand...

Captain_Swoop, with all due respect.....When the command module pilot is sighting stars to align the IMU, he is fully dark adapted, looking through the optics. What does he see?

Well the truth is he sees nothing because this is all fake. But what should he see? We are not talking about a sunlit cabin here, we are talking about a fully dark adapted astronaut sighting through his scanning scope and sextant.

What should/would/could he see?
 
TjW said:
Doesn't that entitle you to two?
Click to expand...

Correcting Jay once is reward enough. :) Another thing I admire about most of the members at Clavius is their ability to remain cool under the steady steam of woo they counter with facts on a regular basis.

Ranb
 
Of course Celestial Navigation is possible.......

tsig said:
Celestial navigation is impossible? All those sailors for all those years that used it must have been lying.
Click to expand...

Of course Celestial Navigation is possible. Sailors have and had a sense for what they would see; what constellations, at what time of year, where in the sky given where they were or thought they might be, and depending on conditions/seeing.

But in the case of the imaginary Apollo ships tsig, say you are in cislunar space with Collins 125,000 milers from the earth, heading toward the moon. You need to sight stars to align your IMU. You stop the PTC, face away from the sun, cover the shades and fully dark adapt. You scan into the pitch black star punctuated sky, looking down sun. What constellations would you see, where, when , how, why? More stars than one would see from earth, looking through the sextant anyway which did not have a light loss problem like the scanning scope.

How do you know which star is which? You have not trained for this. Your computer likewise is not programed for it.

Sailors navigate, Apollo astronauts play pretend space sailor. Don't let 'em jive you tsig. Apollo is one big fat SCAM........
 
SpitfireIX said:
Patrick is either accidentally or intentionally confusing Gene Hackman's role as an astronaut in the film Marooned with Tom Hanks's portrayal of Jim Lovell in Apollo 13.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought but, in a spirit of optimism, thought it was worth asking patrick to clarify his thoughts.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Bales and Garman are perps Jay, like it or not...Not sure what else to say, try and prove me wrong if you can.....
Click to expand...
Already proven.

Although the burden of proof lies with you, Jay has already utterly demolished your 12 point plan for faking Apollo. I take your continued failure to address or even acknowledge his detailed rebuttals as assent on your part. Therefore it is absolutely plain to everyone that the fraud you propose was never perpetrated. Therefore there are no perpetrators. QED. Hope this helps.

By the way, your habit of pointlessly quoting a long post in its entirety only to append a brief comment, which only pertains to one paragraph of it and adds no useful information, is still as irritating now as every previous time you've done it. I thought you'd be pleased to know.
 
Patrick1000 said:
...say you are in cislunar space with Collins 125,000 milers from the earth, heading toward the moon. You need to sight stars to align your IMU. You stop the PTC, face away from the sun, cover the shades and fully dark adapt. You scan into the pitch black star punctuated sky, looking down sun. What constellations would you see, where, when , how, why? More stars than one would see from earth, looking through the sextant anyway which did not have a light loss problem like the scanning scope.

How do you know which star is which? You have not trained for this. Your computer likewise is not programed for it.
Click to expand...

How do you know which star is which? Well, you know the same way I did, the first time I found myself stargazing in a place without light pollution: The bright stars are the principal stars in the constellations. I learned the constellations when almost all I could see was the major stars. It took a few minutes to get used to having a clutter of lesser stars in between, but it really isn't that hard.

If you're an experienced navigator, for example, you will already be perfectly used to picking out those principal stars from a dense field of lesser ones. And indeed you'll be used to operating in all sorts of seeing conditions, from only being able to see a handful of stars to seeing hundreds or thousands. If you now add more even dimmer stars, the familiar task of picking out patterns of bright stars will remain the same.

Do you have any evidence to support your contention that this will be difficult? My direct experience says it's not.

By the way, can you justify your claim that "you have not trained for this" or expand on exactly what you meant by "your computer is not programmed for it"?
 
Patrick1000 said:
The fundamental point Robrob is that a bicycle is a much more sophisticated , much more complex machine than an airplane or rocket..Once you understand that, you are home free......
Click to expand...

Can you justify the claim that aircraft and rockets are cruder, simpler machines than bicycles? How did you assess their complexity?
 
Patrick1000 said:
The fundamental point Robrob is that a bicycle is a much more sophisticated , much more complex machine than an airplane or rocket..Once you understand that, you are home free......
Click to expand...

This is just stunning in its degree of nonsense.

Here's the Wiki on racing bikes:

Racing bicycle

Here's one for the Atlas V rocket:

Atlas V

And the Airbus 380:

Airbus A380

Please Patrick1000 explain how you can possibly justify your ludicrous assertion? Or perhaps you will actually look at the above and simply retract this latest nonsense?
 
Patrick1000 said:
I am a doc
Click to expand...

No Patrick you are not a doctor, all the evidence in this thread says you know nothing about medicine. If you would care to offer up some credentials to prove otherwise please do so, otherwise just stop making this far-fetched claim.
 
Patrick1000 said:
..Once you understand that, you are home free......
Click to expand...

Garrison said:
This is just stunning in its degree of nonsense.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that should have been "Once you believe that, I am home free". It's just about the only way it makes sense. It's all very well to quote Stephen Fry in one of his did-you-know/well-fancy-that remarks, saying nobody has mathematically explained why bicycles are stable, but it's a huge leap into idiocy to take that as a claim that bikes are infinitely complex and subtle while air-and spacecraft are as dumb as hammers.

I fear this is yet another argument of Patrick's that just doesn't stand up. Perhaps he thinks if the thread keeps moving forwards fast enough, it won't quite fall over.
 
Patrick1000 said:
[Everybody] is a PERP
Click to expand...

How does screaming "Perp!" at every turn accomplish anything but make you look desperate?

The only thing you've ever shown about these men is that they behaved differently than your uninformed layman's expectations suggest. I say good. The farther one gets from your expectations, the closer one is likely to get to the truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Patrick1000 said:
Bales is a PERP,

what is wall like about that?

Garman is a PERP

Aaron is a PERP

Phillips is a ROYAL PERP

what is wall like about any of that? looks pretty simple to me, catch 'em lying and call 'em out..............
Click to expand...

OK so go and 'call 'em out'
 
Patrick1000 said:
The fundamental point Robrob is that a bicycle is a much more sophisticated , much more complex machine than an airplane or rocket..Once you understand that, you are home free......
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp

Vehicle | Part Count
bicycle | 200
automobile | 2,500
Boeing 747 | 6,000,000

By one common measure of engineering complexity (part count) an airliner is thirty thousand times more complex than a bicycle. In fact, it takes 270,000 specialized tools alone to build an airliner.

Your claim is patently absurd.
 
Patrick1000 said:
The fundamental point Robrob is that a bicycle is a much more sophisticated , much more complex machine than an airplane or rocket..Once you understand that, you are home free......
Click to expand...

now are you talking about a modern racing bike or are you talking about the "penny-farthing" or "boneshaker" type of bicycle that was the norm 100 years ago?
 
Loss Leader said:
Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. said:
...As you may well be aware. Less is known about the phenomena of "bicycle balancing" than is known about the "balance" of airplanes.

...my bicycles are as high tech and complex mechanically as any Stark Draper gyro ever was, or could be.
Click to expand...
Really, Patrick? Your 2,447th post and you now want to claim to have engineering expertise related to bicycles?
Click to expand...

That went over about as well as his claims to being a doctor, scientist, mathematician, writer, and sort of natural-born engineer.

Patrick1000 said:
Like I said, there is a lot to it and there really is NO mathematical model yet for bikes.
Click to expand...

Google Scholar "modeling bicycle stability"
Results 1 - 10 of about 23,900. (0.23 sec)
...

Stundied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom