bknight
Master Poster
Like our "friend" hunchbacked, he still can not fathom why the Ascent stage is above the CSM.
Camera work of Apollo 17
- Thread starter wogoga
- Start date
Like our "friend" hunchbacked, he still can not fathom why the Ascent stage is above the CSM.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
The late Jack White, a conspiracy nut best known for the above-referenced bellyflop in testimony regarding the JFK assassination, but who spent a lot of time making idiotic claims about Apollo. For a self-proclaimed photographic analyst, his spatial skills were remarkably poor - worse than the average person's. He literally kept confusing one side of the Lunar Module with another.
Less humorously, he also would scale and crop images in sneaky ways to "prove" his point; he wasn't just an honest but mistaken researcher. He was both incompetent and dishonest, as well as unpleasant, at least in his online interactions.
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
Now that my memory has been refreshed. I do recall his futile attempts across several forums presenting his work "that speaks for itself".
It is refreshing to see something that I can comment on, and not hear comments on our President.
dropzone
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,033
It's the still photos that would've convinced me, had I not been watching it in real time. Air seems invisible, but it's always loaded up with gunk, like dust and water vapor. It does not look like a near-vacuum. Those photos were insanely clear. Difficult to reproduce on Earth, but why bother? Just chunk the photographer and his model to the Moon. We were spending a lot to pretend we were going there. Just give three mooks some bedding and a Hasselblad.
Some technical problems just need you to think outside the box.
Some technical problems just need you to think outside the box.
bknight
Master Poster
That is what most hoaxers claim, that they are thinking outside the box and therefore have "discovered" the "hoax" thereby stroking their egos and giving them more intelligent than all scientist and technicians that worked on the project.It's the still photos that would've convinced me, had I not been watching it in real time. Air seems invisible, but it's always loaded up with gunk, like dust and water vapor. It does not look like a near-vacuum. Those photos were insanely clear. Difficult to reproduce on Earth, but why bother? Just chunk the photographer and his model to the Moon. We were spending a lot to pretend we were going there. Just give three mooks some bedding and a Hasselblad.
Some technical problems just need you to think outside the box.
Regarding the seeming perplexity and "danger" of having the LM above the CSM after separation and prior to LM descent...
Folks who see this as evidence of fakery make two obvious mistakes:
1) They fail to grasp that if such a maneuver were indeed foolish to undertake, surely the 'fakers' would never commit such an obvious blunder.
2) They the overlook orbital mechanics, out of ignorance.
I can imagine that these dunces likely think that if the LM were to depart the CSM in an upward trajectory and have all propulsion/maneuvering systems fail, the LM would continue to rise ever farther from the Moon/CSM.
Not so. For not large orbital eccentricity and not large differential velocity, the concept of the epicycle supplies easy visualization of the trajectory of one vehicle relative to the other, to a reasonable approximation of reality.
Let's suppose that initially the docked CSM/LM are on a circular orbit about the Moon, with an orbital period of 2 hours. The LM departs the CSM directly upward at, say, 10 cm/s, and thereafter never makes another thrust/maneuvering impulse.
Relative to the CSM, the LM will execute an elliptical trajectory as seen in plan from the side, co-alt with the CSM. This ellipse will be elongated 2:1, with the long axis oriented along the mean orbit (2X longer horizontally than vertically.) The CSM will be located at the leading end of the ellipse; that is, the ellipse trails the CSM. The ellipse is bisected by the CSM's orbital path; that is, the LM for the first half of the epicycle period is higher than the CSM, and for the second half is lower. The epicycle period equals the 2-hour orbital period.
So, for an LM departure velocity of 10 cm/s, initially directed vertically, the following *very crude* figures can be supplied.
After 1/2 hour the LM will be higher than the CSM by about 11.5m, and trailing behind by about 23m.
After 1 hour the LM will have settled back to the same altitude as the CSM, trailing by about 46m.
After 1.5 hours the LM will be lower than the CSM by some 11.5m, trailing by 23m.
After 2 hours, or one full orbit later, the LM will moved forward and climbed back up to impact or dock with the CSM.
If the departure velocity were to be 1m/s, multiply the foregoing dimensions by 10.
Now, if the initial CSM/LM orbit was not circular, this could have some effect on the epicycle, although not too greatly so. The main thing is that for not rather large departure velocities, the departing vehicle's trajectory relative to the 'static' one will oscillate harmonically so as to return periodically to at least near its starting point.
A hgher-than-CSM position for the LM will, with no additional thrust applied, will within 1/2 an orbit find that reversed.
Folks who see this as evidence of fakery make two obvious mistakes:
1) They fail to grasp that if such a maneuver were indeed foolish to undertake, surely the 'fakers' would never commit such an obvious blunder.
2) They the overlook orbital mechanics, out of ignorance.
I can imagine that these dunces likely think that if the LM were to depart the CSM in an upward trajectory and have all propulsion/maneuvering systems fail, the LM would continue to rise ever farther from the Moon/CSM.
Not so. For not large orbital eccentricity and not large differential velocity, the concept of the epicycle supplies easy visualization of the trajectory of one vehicle relative to the other, to a reasonable approximation of reality.
Let's suppose that initially the docked CSM/LM are on a circular orbit about the Moon, with an orbital period of 2 hours. The LM departs the CSM directly upward at, say, 10 cm/s, and thereafter never makes another thrust/maneuvering impulse.
Relative to the CSM, the LM will execute an elliptical trajectory as seen in plan from the side, co-alt with the CSM. This ellipse will be elongated 2:1, with the long axis oriented along the mean orbit (2X longer horizontally than vertically.) The CSM will be located at the leading end of the ellipse; that is, the ellipse trails the CSM. The ellipse is bisected by the CSM's orbital path; that is, the LM for the first half of the epicycle period is higher than the CSM, and for the second half is lower. The epicycle period equals the 2-hour orbital period.
So, for an LM departure velocity of 10 cm/s, initially directed vertically, the following *very crude* figures can be supplied.
After 1/2 hour the LM will be higher than the CSM by about 11.5m, and trailing behind by about 23m.
After 1 hour the LM will have settled back to the same altitude as the CSM, trailing by about 46m.
After 1.5 hours the LM will be lower than the CSM by some 11.5m, trailing by 23m.
After 2 hours, or one full orbit later, the LM will moved forward and climbed back up to impact or dock with the CSM.
If the departure velocity were to be 1m/s, multiply the foregoing dimensions by 10.
Now, if the initial CSM/LM orbit was not circular, this could have some effect on the epicycle, although not too greatly so. The main thing is that for not rather large departure velocities, the departing vehicle's trajectory relative to the 'static' one will oscillate harmonically so as to return periodically to at least near its starting point.
A hgher-than-CSM position for the LM will, with no additional thrust applied, will within 1/2 an orbit find that reversed.
bknight
Master Poster
And I suspect they are too lazy to learn anything scientific when it is easier to post nonsense, that they heard/saw on YouTube or some hoaxer web site.
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Conspiracist authors Mary Bennett and David Percy have a (lame) explanation for this in their book Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers. They claim that the errors and anomalies that they purport to identify in the Apollo photographic record were deliberately introduced by reluctant participants in the conspiracy in an effort to expose the "hoax" by indirect means, and that all these errors and anomalies somehow all made it past conspiracy quality control.
bknight
Master Poster
Any comments from Aulis should be taken with a LARGE dose of salt. Their Phd's are questionable both in content and as to their degree. They along with Marcus Allen are nothing but snake oil salesmen selling their wares to the uneducated/ignorant population.Conspiracist authors Mary Bennett and David Percy have a (lame) explanation for this in their book Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers. They claim that the errors and anomalies that they purport to identify in the Apollo photographic record were deliberately introduced by reluctant participants in the conspiracy in an effort to expose the "hoax" by indirect means, and that all these errors and anomalies somehow all made it past conspiracy quality control.
Plus, they are claiming that the moon landings are hoaxes. That alone should be enough to question their credibility.
-- Roger
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,114
Conspiracist authors Mary Bennett and David Percy have a (lame) explanation for this in their book Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers. They claim that the errors and anomalies that they purport to identify in the Apollo photographic record were deliberately introduced by reluctant participants in the conspiracy in an effort to expose the "hoax" by indirect means, and that all these errors and anomalies somehow all made it past conspiracy quality control.
In that case, I can only conclude that Percy's use of a single hop to "prove" that they faked 1/6 g by slowing the playback rate when longer stretches of video sped up to the same "real" rate look comically unreal is an attempt to blow open the moon conspiracy conspiracy. He's probably been threatened with having Bart Sibrel jump up and down on his car if he spills the beans, so he's trying to covertly point people in the right direction by making asinine videos full of ridiculous lies.