Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 159
  1. #61
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    PS Andy,

    There is a good documentary called "The Truth About the Moon Landings", co-produced by Britain's Channel 5 and Discovery Canada. It only covers the basics (as you would in a short doco) but it's a very good antidote to the drivel in Fox's programme.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  2. #62
    That's an interesting quote from the guy himself. Must admit I've not even got so far as to know when the chap discovered the radiation how he discovered it or even whether he was still alive. I don't have reason to doubt your source so it seems a good step forward anyway. Must do a bit more research on this chap but obviously it's a bit of a sideline this stuff so I won't make any astonishingly fast progress.

    I guess the first thing is to look at how Van Allen discovered the belts and what, in real terms, we have of measurements of the radiation. To suggest that cameras and film can't survive the passage seems a bit weak since we're receiving info back from unmanned probes, etc. unless we're to believe that absolutely nothing has gone beyond the Van Allen belts and everything that purports to have gone beyond is just a hoax.

    I read somewhere that the Apollo missions aimed their flight paths through a weaker part of the belts. Also, that there's holes in the belts at the poles - would it not be possible to thread the flight path through these holes. Not that NASA claimed to have done this with Apollo but just a thought as to why they didn't if the radiation was supposed to be so intense and thus the moon missions such a risky business. Also, if it was well known by Russia & US that the missions were impossible due to these radiation belts why wouldn't NASA have made the story fit by claiming that they had gone through the hole in the belts (you know, they're pretty damn clever folk whether they did it or faked it).

    As I said, I want to steer clear of the basic stuff with photos, flags & film. However, just one thing that begs an answer is the supposed photo of the same rocks & backdrop in 2 locations said to be on different days and a good distance apart - I think I read it was the Apollo 16 mission??? If they are as the Fox film & other photos depict they certainly appear to be the same place.

    Anyway, onwards to the real science ...... (see you in a few years )
    Last edited by paulh0202; 31st May 2005 at 19:28.

  3. #63
    Just to mention, I watched the prog you mentioned the other night on Channel 5 (UK) called "The Truth About The Moon Landings". It featured the very same hoax theorists as the Fox programme but, unlike Fox, it gave both sides of the argument and pretty well left it to you to decide for yourself.

    I'd have to say that the hoax theorists arguments were made to look very weak, especially by one factor alone. Apparently Jodrell Bank observatory quite independantly tracked Apollo 11 LM onto the moon, even picking up detail such as a blip in their graph as Armstrong boosted the LM to avoid a crater. Of course, it's only their word but I fail to see what possible reason they could have for helping out with any hoax. It would surely have been a massive scoop for Jodrell to uncover the hoax (if there was one). It certainly seems worth a bit of research about Jodrell Bank and other observatories that were independant of the moon landing project.

    Of course I suppose it could be argued that what they monitored was an unmanned landing. But going down this line starts to make me agree with the suggestion that it all starts to seem easier to actually go to the moon (manned) than carry out such an elaborate hoax.

    I'm already being swayed back as a believer. All the early reading I'm doing is certainly suggesting the Van Allen belts are not as problemmatic as the hoax theorists would have us believe. The programme also confirmed your quote about Van Allen Dave. Apparently, he was still alive at the time it was made (don't know whether he still is?) and stated that the allegations made by the hoax theorists about the level & potential effects of radiation in the Van Allen Belts were "preposterous!".

    I'm actually beginning to wonder if there's a possibility that they did go to the moon but showed fake pictures & video to ensure that there was sufficient clarity to "rub it in" as far as the Russians were concerned.

    The Van Allen quote you mention is also mentioned on the Clavius website at http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

    Latest - I watched the video of the above prog again tonight and was thinking about the business of the lack of computer technology and the question as to how the relatively simplistic technology of the day could guide man to the moon. Something struck me - pretty stupidly really. There seems little doubt that unmanned missions had already been landed on the moon - Jodrell had tracked many of these unmanned missions, particularly the Russian "Luna" missions. So if technology was sufficient to successfully guide and land unmanned missions on the moon, surely it would be that much easier to land manned missions when you have the added advantage of someone actually there to carry out checks and make manual adjustments if necessary.
    Last edited by paulh0202; 4th Jun 2005 at 00:51.

  4. #64
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    Excellent posts Paul. Just shows what a bit of open-mindedness and intellegence can do.

    Hoax believers take note - don't take anyone's word for anything (even mine). Research the subject properly, find independent sources, listen without bias to all sides of the story.

    The answers are there for those who are willing to make the effort.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  5. #65
    andrew the viking
    Guest

    Hang On -

    You use the fact that a large number of people keeping the conspiracy from leaking is a valid point of argument. Well we all KNOW Kennedy was shot by more than one guy, but they managed to keep that under wraps...

  6. #66
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    Actually, I think if you do enough research into the Kennedy assassination it might just change your thinking. I was a conspiracy theory believer for many years until the evidence became overwhelming that Lee Harvey Oswald was simply a nutcase who acted alone. I watched a very detailed 3D reconstruction of the assassination scene recently and it left no doubt that there was only one gunman.

    Anyway, please let's not get sidetracked with that theory - we've got enough on our plates trying to inject some sense into the moon hoax debate

    Even if the JFK assassination was a real conspiracy, it is apples and oranges comparing it to the moon hoax. There is no logical connection between the two and you can't say that what applies to one applies to the other. For starters, the number of people involved in the Apollo program was in the hundreds of thousands. The number of people involved in an alleged assassination cover up could have been limited to a few dozen.

    No comparison sorry.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  7. #67
    confused
    Guest
    i watched the fox documentary about the hoax and it seems that I find no good answers from the NASA spokesman to convince people to believe that man really landed on the moon...

  8. #68
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    I think I covered this question earlier. It's an old trick used by devious doco makers. You get a specific accusation from one side, then you ask the other side a similar but much more vague question. Edit the two together and it looks like the answer is fudged and evasive.

    You'll notice we never get to hear the exact questions the NASA spokesperson was asked. If he had been asked the correct questions, for example, "How did you deal with the radiation issue?" rather than "What do you think of the conspiracy theories?" then we would have heard some better answers.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  9. #69
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    Hi, folks. I'm the Clavius.org webmaster. I'm also the guy in the Channel 5 documentary -- the one who was out in the desert and then later at the film lab looking at the photos.

    First, the quote from Prof. Van Allen. Yes, he said that. I have a letter from him confirming that the quote I put on my site is indeed what he said regarding the moon hoax theory. Dr. Van Allen does not believe the Apollo astronauts or equipment would have suffered detrimental effects from passing through the radiation belts that bear his name. Conspiracy theorists, none of whom is an astrophysicists, generally overestimate the effects of radiation.

    Regarding the Fox program, the content was entirely controlled by its producers, who were decidedly in favor of the moon hoax theory. It was not a balanced presentation of the data in any way. I'm sure the regulars on this forum know as well as I -- better, in fact -- how easy it is to mislead viewers. The NASA spokesman (Brian Welch) came off as dismissive because that's how the producers wanted him to come off.

    I was not able to speak to Brian Welch before he passed away, unfortunately. But I was able to contact some of the other experts consulted in that film. Astronaut Brian O'Leary told me they interviewed him for half an hour, during which he asserted several times he believed in the moon landings. But the producers used only a few seconds of his interview in which he answered a hypothetical question (which was not included in the final edit) that made it sound like he doubted the authenticity of Apollo missions.

    I also spoke to space expert Paul Fjeld, who is a friend of mine. He says he was so angered by how the producers misrepresented him that he threatened them with legal action.

    You can't find the Fox program for sale anywhere because it has been acknowledged by the Fox holding corporations as a colossal mistake. It should never have been made or broadcast. It's a 48-minute commercial for theories that have absolutely no basis in science or history.

    You've noticed that when you give those conspiracy authors enough rope, they hang themselves. (Bill Kaysing, the old man with the cats in my documentary, has since passed away of natural causes. So I mean that preceding statement with no disrepect.) You just have to point the camera at them and let them talk. Sooner or later they say or do something outrageous.

    A few things didn't get covered in my documentary. The experiment with Ralph Rene and the glove box isn't a good comparison. He assumes the gloves were pressurized to 14 psi -- Earth atmospheric pressure. They were only pressurized to between 3.5 and 5 psi. And his gloves were thick, heavy lineman's gloves -- very unlike Apollo gloves. The heavy gauntlets you see in the photos are actually overgloves. They're not pressurized, and they're worn as protection over the slimmer pressurized gloves underneath. Those gloves had knobby knuckles to help them bend.

    And the leaf-blower exercise was inaccurate. A leaf blower actually applies considerably more pressure per square inch than a 2,500-lbf rocket plume in a vacuum. And further, the engine did stir up stuff on the lunar surface. Just not as much as these guys say should have been the case. Ralph Rene hasn't been within 10 miles of a working rocket engine. He's not a physicist or an engineer; he's a retired construction worker.

    I'll hang around for a while if you want to ask any questions.

  10. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    A word about computer technology. I'm an engineer, which means I'm a scientist who went for the money instead of the prestige. In any case, my job is to design and build machines.

    I hope some of you are old enough to remember when televisions, dishwashers, clothes washers, and cars didn't have computers. Televisions used analog circuitry, and washing machines had mechanical sequencers to control the cycles. Nowadays we build the same consumer products, but we use computer technology to achieve some of the same things we did with mechanical means. Not with cruder technology necessary; just with different technology. A mechanical sequencer can control a washing machine just as effectively as a microprocessor. But the latter is cheaper and easier to build, and will last longer without replacement. We use computers more these days because it's cheaper to do so, both in the short term and the long term.

    It wasn't always that way. Computers were indeed fairly large, delicate, expensive machines with proportionally limited capacity. Engineers always new they could use computers to control machines, but it wasn't practical to do it until the mid-1960s when integrated circuits came into vogue. Electromechanical control systems were, at that time, still cheaper and smaller.

    The Mercury space capsule had no computer. It had a sophisticated control system, to be sure. But that system did not include a stored-program electronic computer. You don't require a digital computer to fly in space any more than you require one to wash your clothes. It's simply easier these days to solve both problems with onboard computers. That doesn't mean the problems had no solutions previously.

Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Subscribe to us on YouTube