Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 159
  1. #71
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    Hi Jay and welcome to this forum. Thank you so much for your messages - it's great to have the input of someone with your experience. I'm going to have to dig out that Cannel 5 doco and have a look for you.

    I hadn't heard that Bill Kaysing had passed away. Mixed feelings really - it's never a good thing to hear of someone's passing. On the other hand he caused a great deal of damage which is hard to forgive. Most of all I wanted to see his reaction when someone else finally walked on the moon but I guess that's not to be.

    Unfortunately I haven't had time to visit badastronomy.com lately. I used to enjoy the conversations there. The problem is that it's so busy it's very hard to catch up when I do visit.

    As for www.clavius.org it's one of the best, if not the best moon hoax website on the net. I've just had a quick look again and I see you're restarted your forum. Excellent. When I get a chance I'll come for a longer visit. If you ever need (or want) to dump the ProBoards service let me know and we might be able to help each other.

    Thanks again for making the effort to post here.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  2. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    I appreciate the welcome and the praise for the site. A book is forthcoming.

    We filmed a lot of stuff in the desert that doesn't appear in the final film. That's just the nature of documentary filmmaking. I'm the short guy with the crew cut and the high-pitched voice.

    Mr. Kaysing apparently passed away in March of this year, but I wasn't informed of that until just a week or so ago. Despite his many appearances on television, he led an otherwise private life.

    The bulletin board at Clavius is actually run by another guy entirely, who generally does not consult me about technical or political matters. That is done intentionally so that I cannot be accused of bias or of tilting the scales. Since the board exists in part to criticize Clavius, I considered it bad form to moderate it myself.

  3. #73
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    Quote
    Quote: JayW
    That is done intentionally so that I cannot be accused of bias or of tilting the scales. Since the board exists in part to criticize Clavius, I considered it bad form to moderate it myself.
    This is the sort of attitude which seems to separate serious investigators from the hoax believers.

    Good luck with the book. I would be very interesting in purchasing a copy and helping with promotion, so feel free to come and tell us when it's been released.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  4. #74
    John Ma
    Guest

    I try to provide my skeptical points from no-technical event.

    I was a space engineer in China during the moon landing, two senior engineers of my research group didn't believe the moon landing of USA, and wrote a critical article to acuse USA lie in 1970, but after Nixson shake hands with Chairman Mao in 1971, we got a message from US side, their astronaut had seen the Great Wall from the moon!!! All Chinese had been proud of that for almost 30 years, until China launched their spaceman to the space in 2003, they realized it is impossible to see the Great Wall even from the orbit around the earth. But I have to say American people is the smartest people in the world who could make Chinese believe something so easily.

  5. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    Hello John,

    I'm not sure where the legend began stating that you can see the Great Wall from the moon, but it isn't from NASA. The earliest written reference to this claim is from 1938 (R. Halliburton), although we believe it dates to much earlier. It certainly did not originate either with President Nixon or Chairman Mao. NASA astronauts Al Bean and Jay Apt both confirmed prior to China's first space flight that the wall cannot be seen from the moon, or from low Earth orbit, respectively.

    Ironically there are much more visible, yet smaller structures such as dams and airport runways that can be seen from low Earth orbit. China's large dams will certainly be visible from orbit when completed. The Great Wall seems to blend in well enough with its surroundings to make it hard to see.

  6. #76
    Guest
    Guest

    Why havent we gone back?

    Dave,

    Reading through this thread has been somewhat enlightening. But your reply to a previous post saying that we havent gone back because nobody has 'bothered' is truly a remarkable statement!

    We are human beings, curious curious little monkeys. We go to the moon a few times in the 70's, get 'bored' and never go back??? Come on! In the name of exploration we would be over the moon like a bad rash right now. But wait, its only a piece of rock isnt it? I mean it could never hold any clues to our existance at all could it?? Somewhat goes against our complete cultural view at the moment. (Why are we here etc etc)

    Plain and simple logic tells me there is no way we ever got to the moan. I mean we didnt even have a colour television to watch it on???

    It was faked. And it was done brilliantly. It changed the face of this planet.

    Gav

  7. #77
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    Hi Gav,

    I've talked about logic and it's misuse before on this thread. Remember that saying something is logical does not make it so. You need to show how it is logical, like showing your workings in math. Saying "Simple mathematics tells me that 1+1=3" doesn't make it true. Show me exactly how your logic works and I'll take note, but until then it's not logic, it's an opinion.

    I would love to believe your claim that our culture is motivated to spend money and resources exploring our existence, but tell me honesty - what is your local politician's view on this? How much money does s/he advocate spending on space exploration?

    We human beings are curious, but we are more selfish. We'll go to the moon if it doesn't cost too much but we won't do it if it means higher taxes.

    Look at NASA's budget over the last few decades. It demonstrates pretty clearly exactly where America's priorities have been - not on space.

    I notice you also made a mistake which is very common in this debate - comparing unrelated technologies. Television and rocket science are very different beasts. The fact that colour TV hadn't been developed has nothing to do with space exploration. I work in TV production and I could give a long monologue on the history of colour TV but it's just not relevant - any more than the fact that velcro hadn't been invented when Rutherford split the atom.

    I ask you to come back to the use of logic. Think this thing through using the principles of logic, not emotion or "common sense" - they will both let you down.
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  8. #78
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    We are human beings, curious curious little monkeys.

    Some are, but many are not, and not necessarily curious about the same things. And many considered having gone to the moon six times sufficient satisfaction for their curiosity. And some people's curiosity evaporates quickly when they get the bill.

    The taxpayer giveth and the taxpayer taketh away. If you're going to do things on the public nickel, you have to keep the public interested and excited. After Apollo 11 most of the public interest in Apollo waned, because curiosity had taken a very distant back seat to beating the Russians there. Just as Pres. Kennedy intended, Apollo was more about demonstrating technical superiority over the Soviet Union than about doing real science. That doesn't mean NASA didn't have its eye on science at the time, but it means that Congress and the Nixon administration -- who were writing the checks -- bowed to public pressure and curtailed space exploration.

    We go to the moon a few times in the 70's, get 'bored' and never go back??? Come on!

    There were several initiatives to return to the moon, beginning in the 1970s. The issue was resurrected again in the 1990s, and lately again just last year. The rousing round of indifference that rose from the American public each time is pretty telling -- the people being asked to pay for this exploration just don't seem very interested in it. Their attitude seems to be, "Why should we waste money doing something we already did?" The only reason the 2004 initiative seems to have gained a foothold is because the Chinese are trying to get to the moon. So instead of beating the Russians to the moon we'll be beating the Chinese there. Are you starting to see the real trend in how the public thinks?

    I don't see any evidence for your premise that the American public in general has always been eager to maintain a lunar exploration program.

    Plain and simple logic tells me there is no way we ever got to the moan.

    What logic, exactly? As I said, I am a professional engineer, and part of my expertise is in space engineering. There is certainly no technical reason preventing us in the 1960s from having gone.

    So far your argument is not very logical. In fact, I see this kind of argument often enough that I even have a name for it: the "If I Ran the Zoo" argument. Basically you take your idea of motive and "paste" it onto other people, arguing that because you think it's sensible to behave in a certain way that's the only logical course of action. And if someone behaves differently, that's immediately suspicious. That type of subjective argument is rarely logically defensible. You must consider the actual motives, not what you think they should have been.

    I mean we didnt even have a colour television to watch it on?

    And so because it wasn't in color you say it's not a technological triumph? Since the Apollo 11 EVA was only 2 hours long, the mission planners didn't want to spend 30 minutes of that setting up the large S-band antenna for color television.

    Keep in mind that NASA was working on a deadline. They only had six months left to satisfy Kennedy's challenge. If Apollo 11 had failed to land on the moon, they had only one or two more chances to meet the deadline. Kennedy committed NASA to landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth. He said nothing about color television coverage of the event. NASA was paring down the mission requirements to a manageable set in order to increase their chances of success. There was talk even of omitting television altogether on Apollo 11. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed.

    But back to the antenna. The goal in the case of Apollo 11 was to fit a television signal onto the S-band carrier, along with voice and telemetry, and send the whole thing to Earth over a 4-watt signal through a small, one-meter antenna. The Apollo 11 coverage used a reduced frame rate, a reduced raster size, and omitted the color information in order to fit the signal to the engineering requirements of the communication system on that mission. That is the miracle, not whether the signal was in color or not.

    Later missions had dedicated facilities for television transmissions, and indeed provided near broadcast quality television from the surface of the moon. Of course they required longer to set up, and many of them hadn't yet been fully engineered in 1969 for Apollo 11.

    It was faked. And it was done brilliantly.

    I'd love to hear you explain exactly how.

  9. #79
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    You need to show how it is logical...

    I agree. Logic is a grammar and vocabulary for expressing and analyzing lines of reasoning. Merely alluding to something being logical or illogical does not establish it as either. Saying something is "logical" is often shorthand for saying it's valid according to the rules of logic, but unless the argument is spelled out for analysis then it can't be held as logical.

    Look at NASA's budget over the last few decades. It demonstrates pretty clearly exactly where America's priorities have been - not on space.

    Correct. The War on Terror costs approximately the same per month as one space shuttle orbiter. Laying aside the question of whether they are effective measures, the American public opts to spend money to fight terrorism rather than on the development of space technology.

    NASA today is a very different organization than it was in 1965. Back then it was largely a technocratic group. Today it is fully mired in bureaucracy and politics, most of which take a very heavy toll on NASA's mission. Its budget is routinely co-opted for pork-barrel projects that benefit specific constituencies.

    Television and rocket science are very different beasts.

    But even consumer television and Apollo television are very different beasts. Comparing dissimilar technology inappropriately is easy to spot. What is more difficult to spot is the comparison between technologies that intuition suggests should be comparable, but which are actually very different. The latter requires delving into the specific requirements and constraints.

    Consumer television is built according to objectives such as lowering consumer's cost of ownership, providing attractive features, and maintaining high quality. Those objectives don't necessarily apply to television systems for lunar exploration. A lunar system may emphasize reliability and ruggedness over glitziness.

    In addition to designing something according to its objectives and requirements, you must also consider the constraints and environment in which it will operate. Consumer television can presume a climate-controlled environment that doesn't vibrate excessively, is supplied with reasonably "clean" and plentiful electricity, interprets a signal sent over a generally reliable and capacious network, and is "cushy" in other ways. The constraints under which lunar exploration television system must operate are considerably more restrictive. You have extremes of temperature, possibly of radiation, minimal power consumption, and a narrow communication stream with a range of more than a quarter million miles.

    As you design, other constraints creep into the picture as a result of technology you employ to solve problems. For example, the Apollo 11 surface camera had to photograph Armstrong in the shadow of the lunar module. It used a special pickup tube that was, at the time, top secret military technology: low-light television. The constraints imposed was that for sunlit scenes the lens had to have an aperture of about f/60, and the camera was entirely unforgiving to damage incurred by bright light. And the picture quality suffered: a tube designed to obtain acceptable TV images in almost no light is not necessarily guaranteed to produce the same picture qualify as an RCA or Westinghouse vidicon intended for studio videography.

    I frequently have conversations with people who point out that their PDAs have more computing power than the space shuttle computers or the Apollo guidance computer. They conclude, wrongly, that those spacecraft control systems are therefore inferior to the PDA. The comparison is wrong because it assumes both systems are intended to satisfy the same set of requirements. Computational speed is generally not as important to a man-rated computer as reliability. PDAs are not especially reliable compared to critical computer systems. A slow computer works better than a broken one in all cases. And so I usually trump the discussion by proposing that the person allow me to boil his PDA for fifteen minutes in a saucepan full of water, then put it in a paint mixer for a good shake test while I turn its power on and off two times a second. Oh, and I get to kill the person if his PDA malfunctions, just to keep the stakes realistic.

    Analyzing technology by comparison is very common in conspiracist arguments because few conspiracy theorists really understand the technology. They can't get into details and talk about requirements and constraints because they don't know what those are, and aren't able to tell whether the various elements of technology really would satisfy them.

  10. #80
    John Ma
    Guest

    If NASA prove it is truth, show pictures of relics of their landing

    I am hesitating to write here, one is my poor English, the other is that after 9/11 I feel it is more serious problem to talk bad things about USA. I don't believe moon landing and told my students since 1996 in China and Japan, because I bound it together with Y2K problem to them. Since one was a past event, the other was a future event during 1996-1999, after all of my students realized Y2K was a conspiracy of US IT industry, all of my student believe my judgement now. it is difficult to argue logic or something else, you know more science, technology and logic doesn't mean your believe is correct. If A lie can be proved to be a lie by technology, a lie can be proved to be a truth by technology. NASA can easily prove that I am wrong if they take some picture of the landing relics by using their telescope camera or something else. If you really spent 30 billion US$ for the landing ( it valued more 300 billion today's dollar ), it is worth to spend a little money to take some picture of the landing relics. Is my logic wrong? If landing is a lie, all other country can't find the landing relics, European's picture didn't show up months ago.

Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... 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