Completely Denied Conspiracy
-
i would of thought quite a while in such low gravity, but not long in a Hollywood Basementyour right.
Here, dust stays up a long time because it's only slightly denser than the air around it... In a vacuum, there's nothing pushing it up, so it falls down just as fast as, say, a person. Think of the old experiment... Drop a ball and a feather in normal air, and the feather floats down gently while the ball drops fast. Do it in a vacuum, and they both land at the same time.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Mythbusters is not a source of scientific truth. They are a pair of grotesquely hirsuit special effects doods. Sure, nice guys and entertaining, but they lack the qualifications to make statements that a court would accept.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
As the claims are that they were faked by hollywood style effects, I would suggest that experianced Holywood special effect geeks were EXACTLY the type of expert a court would except. Since science excepts that it may not be possible to prove something beyond doubt, it is exceptable to use reasonable proof unless the evidence against is strong enough to refute it. so the evidence that says they did go (NASA + evidence that something was transmitting from the landing sites at the time the landings occured, and that a launch, orbit and outward/return trip to the moon was observed by third parties) has to be weighed against the evidence that they didnt. And frankly the evidence they didnt go is very slight, relying on bad science and poor understanding. a classic one I have read, is that a mountain range appears in photos from two different landings. But as evidence of fakery? would not the apearance of this ranage in ONE photo be a, evidence of a massive fake b, a missfiling of a photo which is the more likely? science often works on the balance of probability rather than always being absolute truths, so until either side can prove beyond doubt, the balance is heavly towards them going, so the burden of proof should lie with the sceptics as per excepted science.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
As the claims are that they were faked by hollywood style effects, I would suggest that experianced Holywood special effect geeks were EXACTLY the type of expert a court would except. Since science excepts that it may not be possible to prove something beyond doubt, it is exceptable to use reasonable proof unless the evidence against is strong enough to refute it. so the evidence that says they did go (NASA + evidence that something was transmitting from the landing sites at the time the landings occured, and that a launch, orbit and outward/return trip to the moon was observed by third parties) has to be weighed against the evidence that they didnt. And frankly the evidence they didnt go is very slight, relying on bad science and poor understanding. a classic one I have read, is that a mountain range appears in photos from two different landings. But as evidence of fakery? would not the apearance of this ranage in ONE photo be a, evidence of a massive fake b, a missfiling of a photo which is the more likely? science often works on the balance of probability rather than always being absolute truths, so until either side can prove beyond doubt, the balance is heavly towards them going, so the burden of proof should lie with the sceptics as per excepted science.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Ow... Painful post... Not the content, but the grammar. EXCEPT = Synonym for "but". As in, "Everyone went to the party EXCEPT for Bob" ACCEPT = Agree or consent to, as in, "Joe ACCEPTED the award," or "The court ACCEPTED the evidence" Sorry... needed to be said.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ow... Painful post... Not the content, but the grammar. EXCEPT = Synonym for "but". As in, "Everyone went to the party EXCEPT for Bob" ACCEPT = Agree or consent to, as in, "Joe ACCEPTED the award," or "The court ACCEPTED the evidence" Sorry... needed to be said.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)sorry
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
Still does not constitute Proof under scientific rules.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
I don't think science can proof anything. It can provisionally confirm hypotheses i.e. say they have not been refuted but can never decisively prove they are true. It just seems to me to be a mistake to ask for scientific proof in cases such as this. All you can ask is which is more likely, that it happened or it was a hoax. All the alleged evidence that it was a hoax seems to be explicable under the hypothesis that it happened. And, as I said before, if it had not happened the USSR would have blazed it to the skies. And that did not happen, so I guess that the landings did happen. Alternatively, there was some super national conspiracy to suppress the fact that the transmission from the moon were all fake.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Here, dust stays up a long time because it's only slightly denser than the air around it... In a vacuum, there's nothing pushing it up, so it falls down just as fast as, say, a person. Think of the old experiment... Drop a ball and a feather in normal air, and the feather floats down gently while the ball drops fast. Do it in a vacuum, and they both land at the same time.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Drop a ball and a feather in normal air, and the feather floats down gently while the ball drops fast.
That's because fairies like feathers, and support them during the fall.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Do it in a vacuum, and they both land at the same time.
That's because fairies die in a vacuum. Prove me wrong! (From some otherwise unmemorable film I saw years ago.)
Bob Emmett Which? Race - Your monthly guide to genocide. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Drop a ball and a feather in normal air, and the feather floats down gently while the ball drops fast.
That's because fairies like feathers, and support them during the fall.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Do it in a vacuum, and they both land at the same time.
That's because fairies die in a vacuum. Prove me wrong! (From some otherwise unmemorable film I saw years ago.)
Bob Emmett Which? Race - Your monthly guide to genocide. Published by the New World Order Press.
:laugh:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I am sceptical. There is enough doubt to ensure I keep an open mind. When the only source of proof is from the people who claim it to be true there must be room for conspiracy. Until a return mission by another nation shows proof I shall have my doubts. I don't believe in god simply because bronze age goatherders invented a story, so I won't fall into the faith in Nasa trap either.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
What about the Apollo 11 & 15 laser retro-reflectors? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment[^] If you have a powerful enough laser and telescope, you might be able to see the reflection. (and according to the article, the soviets sent up two reflectors themselves. So, if the landings were fake why wouldn't they say anything?) These reflectors are mostly used for range finding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Point_Observatory_Lunar_Laser-ranging_Operation[^]
-
What about the Apollo 11 & 15 laser retro-reflectors? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment[^] If you have a powerful enough laser and telescope, you might be able to see the reflection. (and according to the article, the soviets sent up two reflectors themselves. So, if the landings were fake why wouldn't they say anything?) These reflectors are mostly used for range finding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Point_Observatory_Lunar_Laser-ranging_Operation[^]
Oh gosh, I forgot about that, damn, only humans could have placed them, machines could never have done that.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
Oh gosh, I forgot about that, damn, only humans could have placed them, machines could never have done that.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
I am sceptical. There is enough doubt to ensure I keep an open mind. When the only source of proof is from the people who claim it to be true there must be room for conspiracy. Until a return mission by another nation shows proof I shall have my doubts. I don't believe in god simply because bronze age goatherders invented a story, so I won't fall into the faith in Nasa trap either.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
-
I am sceptical. There is enough doubt to ensure I keep an open mind. When the only source of proof is from the people who claim it to be true there must be room for conspiracy. Until a return mission by another nation shows proof I shall have my doubts. I don't believe in god simply because bronze age goatherders invented a story, so I won't fall into the faith in Nasa trap either.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link http://www.bellcross.co.uk/CCC.htm[^]
It's not that difficult from a engineering point of view believe it or not, it's more a process and maangment issue to get all the engineering to come together plus the political support. Add to that satellite TV and, to paraphrase, it's not that great a leap. Finally think of all the stories where evidence has leaked and the conspiracy theory becomes even weaker. It is simply easier to have actually done it.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
-
i would of thought quite a while in such low gravity, but not long in a Hollywood Basementyour right.
The acceleration of gravity on the moon is 1.6 m/s^2. The pertinent equation is s = 1/2 gt^2. So if the dust was throw a full kilometer high (I think most would have been blasted on low parabalic trajectories), it would take sqrt(1000/(1.6 /2)) = sqrt(1250) = 35 seconds for ALL the dust to have settled COMPLETELY. Considerably shorter than the time it would have taken them to get out of their seats and get to the hatch even if they'd done that, which they didn't.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
-
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
I find it quite sad that there are those who still hold to the belief that the moon landings were faked. It undermines the brave men and women who sacrificed so much for the sake of human exploration. It's so easy for armchair experts to deny evidence isn't it? If only they had the faith that these things are possible by man.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Drop a ball and a feather in normal air, and the feather floats down gently while the ball drops fast.
That's because fairies like feathers, and support them during the fall.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Do it in a vacuum, and they both land at the same time.
That's because fairies die in a vacuum. Prove me wrong! (From some otherwise unmemorable film I saw years ago.)
Bob Emmett Which? Race - Your monthly guide to genocide. Published by the New World Order Press.
What about inionising radiation, if that spelling is incorrect, must be the bourbon. If i was a dust paticle, which i am not by the way. I would stick to anyting of the opposite charge, i am thinking that there is probably a lot of ionising radiation on the moon. Possibly not underground in Hollywood, or maybe there is amongst the Wild Turkey ?
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Drop a ball and a feather in normal air, and the feather floats down gently while the ball drops fast.
That's because fairies like feathers, and support them during the fall.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Do it in a vacuum, and they both land at the same time.
That's because fairies die in a vacuum. Prove me wrong! (From some otherwise unmemorable film I saw years ago.)
Bob Emmett Which? Race - Your monthly guide to genocide. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
The acceleration of gravity on the moon is 1.6 m/s^2. The pertinent equation is s = 1/2 gt^2. So if the dust was throw a full kilometer high (I think most would have been blasted on low parabalic trajectories), it would take sqrt(1000/(1.6 /2)) = sqrt(1250) = 35 seconds for ALL the dust to have settled COMPLETELY. Considerably shorter than the time it would have taken them to get out of their seats and get to the hatch even if they'd done that, which they didn't.
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
Have a look at this picture http://blackmaps.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/moon-landing.jpg[^] Whats that white thing on the dirt, a bed pan ? Also the moons not round or its bigger than we all thought ?
-
Have a look at this picture http://blackmaps.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/moon-landing.jpg[^] Whats that white thing on the dirt, a bed pan ? Also the moons not round or its bigger than we all thought ?
-
Replace the air with cyanide gas.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
-
What about inionising radiation, if that spelling is incorrect, must be the bourbon. If i was a dust paticle, which i am not by the way. I would stick to anyting of the opposite charge, i am thinking that there is probably a lot of ionising radiation on the moon. Possibly not underground in Hollywood, or maybe there is amongst the Wild Turkey ?
