Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

Foster Zygote said:
EM emissions and charged particles are quite different phenomena despite both being referred to as "radiation", .
Click to expand...

This is one of those misunderstandings of the science that JU refers to above. It is easy to see how a non-student of science would have difficulty with grasping that alpha and beta particles are radiation given that gamma, xray and even UV are all referred to as radiation.
In addition when there is a nuclear accident there is always news about a radiation leak and a cloud of radiation that mostly refers to radioactive isotope leaks. The alpha, beta and gamma radiation isn't the cloud or plume, it emanates from the components that make up the cloud or plume.

In a nuclear bomb explosion , gamma and other EM is an immediate consequence with certain health effects but later, fallout of radioactive isotopes is another consequence. To the layman terms then, "radiation" hangs around. No, the EM radiation from the actual explosion is long gone by the time fallout comes into play.

That makes it confusing when articles come out saying the radiation plume in the ocean , from Fukushima will take three years to reach the N.American west coast. But, but, but gamma and xrays travel at the speed of light and even alpha and beta radiation is moving quickly.
WRT the " radiation" belts around the planet articles describe the magnetic field as accelerating particles. The observable effect being the polar Aurora and again a conflation occurs, in the non-student of science, between particles and EM radiation

The term "radiation" is a catch all but people who do not study it cannot separate the various subcategories and end up thinking that either they've been lied to or that its too hard to understand.
 
Last edited:
I was reading a thread on the Orion EFT-1 (Henceforth Orion 1) launch over at the NASASpaceFlight forum and someone posted images from the Apollo 4 launch in comparison to the Orion 1 launch (Link below).

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36227.msg1298777#msg1298777

I was looking at the Apollo 4 Earth photograph and mentally comparing it with the equivalent Orion 1 photograph and my first reaction was that picture quality has decreased in 46 years, then of course I realized I was comparing apples with oranges. But it does not take much to figure out that we could see a rush of claims that the Apollo photographs are faked because they are 'too good' compared with the digital images created now, spurious though that argument is.
 
I would like to point out that I typed, "The fake thing I noticed.."

Which evidently can be dismissed with research.

After enough years as an engineer, I learned how to phrase things so I am never wrong, and avoid contradicting others.
 
ClarkMag said:
I would like to point out that I typed, "The fake thing I noticed.."

Which evidently can be dismissed with research.

After enough years as an engineer, I learned how to phrase things so I am never wrong, and avoid contradicting others.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that you were not in error when you claimed that "One small step for a man" was substituted in replay for the "Eagle has landed" message?
 
ClarkMag said:
I would like to point out that I typed, "The fake thing I noticed.."

Which evidently can be dismissed with research.

After enough years as an engineer, I learned how to phrase things so I am never wrong, and avoid contradicting others.
Click to expand...

I'm a practicing engineer, have been for 25 years, and I don't know what the heck you're talking about. What point, if any, are you trying to make in this thread?
 
ClarkMag said:
I would like to point out that I typed, "The fake thing I noticed.."

Which evidently can be dismissed with research.

After enough years as an engineer, I learned how to phrase things so I am never wrong, and avoid contradicting others.
Click to expand...


You make me sad confused.
 
ClarkMag said:
I would like to point out that I typed, "The fake thing I noticed.."

Which evidently can be dismissed with research.

After enough years as an engineer, I learned how to phrase things so I am never wrong, and avoid contradicting others.
Click to expand...
What you said was:
ClarkMag said:
The fake thing I noticed about the Apollo landing, was that when I watched it live in 1969, he said something about the sea of tranquility.

Then on replays, it was the one step for man thing.
Click to expand...
The actual quotes and the actual mission transcripts were pointed out to you, including the 7 or so elapsed hours between both of those utterances. No amount of "phrasing things so that you are never wrong" wriggles you out of the fact that you were absolutely provably wrong in this instance. This is not a personal criticism of you. Human memory plays tricks as a matter of course on everyone.

In fact, as an eyewitness to a hit and run, I recalled every detail perfectly when formally interviewed by the police later. Except for one. The perpetrators car was green but I remembered it as red. Seems a bizarre swap to occur in memory, right? But there you go. Another witness caught the incident on their phone, so the facts outweigh my strange memory colour swap.

So back to the matter at hand. It is unclear to me whether you are honestly putting up your hand and saying you were wrong or, OTOH, attempting to avoid admitting you were wrong. It seems I am not alone in this perceived ambiguity. You could easily dispel it.
 
ClarkMag said:
I would like to point out that I typed, "The fake thing I noticed.."

Which evidently can be dismissed with research.

After enough years as an engineer, I learned how to phrase things so I am never wrong, and avoid contradicting others.
Click to expand...

Apparently you only think you learned how to phrase things so that you are never wrong.
 
turingtest said:
It seems that, for Clark, being an engineer means never having to say "I was wrong." Or something...
Click to expand...
With apologies to many engineers I have interacted with online, I have met several that have uttered statements to me that boil down to " that couldn't have happened to that piece of equipment I designed because I designed it".
There is a corollary to Murphy's law, wrt electronics, which states that the first component in a circuit to detect an over current condition ( fry, cook, burn, short a misnomer since it usually ends up as an open circuit), will not be the over current protection device. However, it seems electronic engineers, as opposed to mere techs such as myself, have never been informed of that caveat.
 
turingtest said:
It seems that, for Clark, being an engineer means never having to say "I was wrong." Or something...
Click to expand...

Meh. I graduated in 92. Seems to me that a large part of being a real engineer is having the wontons to fess up if you <bleep> up. I can only assume that this is a feature of those who call themselves engineers without any professional accreditation whatsoever. Bovine fecal matter engineers simply shovel manure into wheelbarrows.
 
A phrase that has stood me in good stead in the past 30 years in the oil and gas industry;
I can make it idiot-proof, but I cannot make it engineer-proof.​
 
abaddon said:
Meh. I graduated in 92. Seems to me that a large part of being a real engineer is having the wontons to fess up if you <bleep> up. I can only assume that this is a feature of those who call themselves engineers without any professional accreditation whatsoever. Bovine fecal matter engineers simply shovel manure into wheelbarrows.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I am not an engineer but on occasion the production people have listed me in credits as " Engineer". Sometimes I mange to correct it before airing, to "Technician" or "Broadcast Technician". I am often asked " so what's the difference?" , to which I say " I haven't got that degree". To me it is just being honest.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom