Saturday, May 9, 2009

Quit it Now!

Patriots Cave posted an article regarding the phoney moon landing. It was posted a few days ago. The suprising thing was, I only got one comment from those who believe in that fiasco. This person stated that travelling to the moon, landing human beings there, walking around, surviving the extreme temperatures, blasting back off of the lunar surface, and safely returning to earth, was a simple matter of mathmatics and physics. Simple. Okay- +++ .... Drew, please explain to Patriots Cave and it's readers, how these spaceships were able to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts. The very best minds in science (who aren't sold out) agree that it would take metal shielding 2 feet thick, to protect astronauts while passing through the Van Allen belt. The space craft which supposedly went to the moon were about as thick as a heavy duty old fashioned tin foil. Please explain. No. Do not explain. Find it out for yourself. Also investigate why none of the film from the "lunar" cameras had any radiation spots on it, in an atmosphere with absolutely zero protection. And how about those battery powered backpack combination heaters/air-cooling units? What kind of battery can produce wattage necessary to heat the astronauts when the lunar surface temperatures plunged to -357 degrees F ? Please tell me where we can all find some of these batteries. Oh wait a minute, that's not all, this backpack unit was also able to kick in to AC cooling unit, keeping our brave astronauts nice and cool when the temps soared to +253 degrees F ! That's a 600 degree flucuation! The amazing thing is that these magic backpacks produce zero steam and or water vapor or frozen water vapor or anything. Even while chugging away, beating back the extreme temps, which would have both froze and baked our heros were they to stop working even for a few moments. Or if the battery got ran down and needed replaced. Hmnnn. Drew, if it's such a simple matter, why can't they get it done "again" by 2020 with all this new technology? Budget cuts? Come on now. You can go on believing. Did you know that NASA has NEVER turned the HUBBLE telescope towards the lunar surface? Did you know when investigators cross examined Apollo astronauts, that several of them got tongue tied and ran away! These guys were trained to piss ice water, thats how cool they had to be to even enter the training program, but they couldn't stand to answer some "simple" questions. I could go on and on. Send me your rebuttle to this post and I will.

16 comments:

Paul said...

Allow me to answer your shotgun blast of nonsense.

The very best minds in science (who aren't sold out) agree that it would take metal shielding 2 feet thick, to protect astronauts while passing through the Van Allen belt.Absolute nonsense. The "who aren't sold out" bit is a dead giveaway that you aren't really interested in hearing actual facts that don't sit well with your agenda.

The space radiation environment is very well characterised, as measured by hundreds of instruments launched by many nations, and even international amateur groups such as AMSAT. Radiation affects electronics even more strongly than it does humans, so any nation that launches a satellite into or through the belts needs to know with a high degree of precision details about the things like radiation type, flux density and energy spectrum. Without this, they wouldn't be able to calculate how much shielding would be necessary to prevent their electronics from frying. The "two feet" figure is just nonsense invented by hoax theorists who don't have a clue about the real science. Can you actually name one of these "best minds" that say otherwise, or was that unsupported rhetoric? Real science can come up with very specific figures - for example, a satellite with an elliptical orbit that passes through the belts and has 3 mm of aluminium shielding will have an internal absorbed dose of about 25 Sieverts per year. That's not something you'd want to do day in and day out, but a hour-long passage is quite survivable by humans. To believe otherwise is to assume that every single nation, corporation, amateur group or educational institution that has built a satellite is in on the hoax.

The space craft which supposedly went to the moon were about as thick as a heavy duty old fashioned tin foil.No, that's (slightly understating for yet more rhetorical effect) the LM, the spacecraft they landed on the Moon in. During the passage through the belts, all of the astronauts were in the Apollo Command Module, which had about one inch of aluminium shielding, as well as a fibrous insulation/shielding layer, which is actually better protection in some circumstances that metal.

Also investigate why none of the film from the "lunar" cameras had any radiation spots on it

How do you know none did? Have you examined all of the substandard shots from any of the missions that weren't up to National Geographic publication standards? They are available online. Do you know anything about the design criteria for the Hasselblad camera used on the surface, such as the specs for radiation mitigation? How about the shielded storage facilities for film that wasn't in the camera? No? Perhaps you have just swallowed whole the pronouncements of a hoax proponent who knows that most people won't check these details for themselves. Most of them are charlatans who know that their arguments are crap, but they don't care as long as they can con people into buying their DVDs.

What kind of battery can produce wattage necessary to heat the astronauts when the lunar surface temperatures plunged to -357 degrees F ? That's the lowest recorded temperature on the Moon during its entire month long day/night cycle. Was that temperature actually reached during any of the missions? This is like saying that the Earth can get down to -60 C (in an Antarctic winter, for example) and that therefore we should all have frozen solid.

this backpack unit was also able to kick in to AC cooling unit, keeping our brave astronauts nice and cool when the temps soared to +253 degrees F ! That's a 600 degree flucuation! Oh dear, Death Valley can get up to about 60 C! That's a 120 degree fluctuation! We should all be alternately freezing or dying of heatstroke! Life on Earth is impossible!

why can't they get it done "again" by 2020 with all this new technology? Budget cuts?Yes. Apollo consumed about 4% of the US GDP at its height. NASA gets only a fraction of that now. Your disbelief doesn't make that any less relevant.

Did you know that NASA has NEVER turned the HUBBLE telescope towards the lunar surface?Simply not true. Of course, Hubble can only see things 80m across on the Moon as a tiny speck, so it definitely doesn't have the resolution to see something as small as the Apollo remains. You might respond "what, it can see galaxies on the other side of the universe, but it can't see something in our backyard?", but that ignores the fact that galaxies are really, really big. Do the math - a galaxy 100,000 light years across and five billion light years away, versus a lunar rover four meters long and 380,000 kilometers away. Calculate the ratios, and you'll see that the angular separation of the Apollo remains is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the galaxy. I can see the Moon with my naked eyes, but I can't see geostationary communications satellites that are ten times closer.

Did you know when investigators cross examined Apollo astronauts, that several of them got tongue tied and ran away!

No, when one of the hypocritical charlatans (Bart Sibrel) hounded and stalked the astronauts, they quite rightly wanted nothing to do with a lunatic. He approached and abused a number of them, demanding that they swear on a bible that they landed on the Moon. Most of them walked away, not out of fear, but out of disgust. Most of these got appropriately edited airtime on Sibrels' DVD. The ones that actually could be bothered swearing mysteriously don't get a mention. Mind you, Sibrel then just abused them for lying and blasphemy. Hell of a guy.

Joel the K said...

Nice try. Tell me something Paul. Who was the key figure in the US Space program? Who was the brilliant mind upon which our program was built? Von Braun. Is that a credible enough scientist?
Von Braun said in his book 'Conquest To The Moon' (published in 1953) that it would be impossible to send anyone to the Moon because of the sheer size of craft needed to do the trip. In fact, taking Von Braun's calculations into consideration, a spaceship that needed to travel that distance would have had to be 266 times bigger than the Saturn 5.

Go see for yourself, and leave your ego investment out of it, or you will never see past it.

anybody who believes the disinfo from Paul should also examine these revelations.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Thanks for excersizing free speech Paul.

Paul said...

My ego investment? You make with teh funney.

So you're just going to change the subject rather than address any of the rebuttal I've provided? That's usually par for the course for this subject. Bring a hoax believer to task and they'll just ignore anything you've said, raising a new point "Well, bet you can't explain this then, huh? Huh?" without a backwards glance or a sign of self consciousness. They'll also accuse you of outright lying ("disinfo") without ever having the guts to explain how it is so. Sheer petulance. How, for example, is providing a link to Hubble pictures of the Moon in response to your claim that no such pictures exist "disinfo"?

So - I can answer the von Braun point as well, but before I do, do you have any specific counterargument to what I've already written apart from a snide dismissal of it as ego driven?

In the interests of fairness and true openmindedness, allow me to provide a counterpoint to the link you've given. If you are truly interested in the truth, you shouldn't object too much to exposing yourself to opposing arguments and be prepared to evaluate them on their merits, as oppposed to kneejerk rejecting them because they conflict with what you want to believe.

Joel the K said...

You have a very pissy vibe about you Paul. I do not like the whole flavor of how you address me. Your very first comment was pregnant with disrespect. I did address your point. You asked if I could name one scientist to support the claim. And I gave you the best. For pure debating points, as in a debating team, you are going to win because you obviously have a great deal of time to do this sort of thing. There are so many holes in the lunar mission story its like swiss cheese. I refuse to trust a government that has lied to us again and again and again and again. And is lying right now. And will lie tomorrow. I'm not an astrophysicist, but I know bs when I smell it. In 2026 hoards of "classified" data will be revealed, because the liars will have died of old age by then. What do they have to hide? They lie. They are liars. Go on believing it Paul. Your government loves you. This is not my full time job. You are not going to change your mind no matter what the evidence shows. Go ahead and claim victory with our argument. I still know we never went to the moon. As far as the Hubble pics go, I did not know they turned it. I will examin your pics. Do the pics show the landing site and the flags? Relax man.

Paul said...

Your very first comment was pregnant with disrespect.I was addressing your argument, not you. Your OP is dripping with snideness, so why object when someone replies in like tone? Additionally, you have accused me of lying ("disinfo"), so let's not go throwing any stones, hmm?

You asked if I could name one scientist to support the claim. And I gave you the best.No, your original point was: The very best minds in science (who aren't sold out) agree that it would take metal shielding 2 feet thick, to protect astronauts while passing through the Van Allen belt. Are you saying that your von Braun point addresses the "two feet" claim in any way? Additionally, given you are using him as a source, are you claiming that he hasn't "sold out"?

Given your unwillingness to actually address your original points, let's consider them abandoned and move on. The von Braun quote is taken completely out of context. Once again, you are just cut and pasting a claim from a hoax site (without attribution) and not actually investigating if they are talking nonsense. That quote from von Braun was in 1953, and was talking about developing a single stage rocket capable of flying directly to the Moon and returning. The actual method used, that of a multi-stage rocket, has completely different design criteria.

I'm not an astrophysicist, but I know bs when I smell it.But you're not prepared to listen to actual scientists who can explain that your preconceptions are not in accordance with reality? You aren't coming across as truly open minded.

Go on believing it Paul. Your government loves you.What does explaining scientific fact have to do with approval of government? The fact you can't discern between the two is your problem, not mine. Disliking the way government is operated does not mean that one needs to uncritically accept that any accusation of dishonesty is factual. If that was the case, we might as well believe that government is full of shapeshifting alien cannibals, as some people unfortunately do.

One lie does not automatically prove another, nor does it automatically prove that every utterance is false. It establishes a basis for caution in believing anything that is said, but actual evidence is the key.

You are not going to change your mind no matter what the evidence shows.Mr Pot, there's a Mr Kettle for you on line two.

I have examined all the evidence. I've cross checked it against sources independent of either the governemnt or the conspiracy theorists. Have you? Are you even interested in doing so, or are you just going to be content with believing self-aggrandizing charlatans who are telling you comfortable lies? The price of freedom, intellectual and otherwise, is eternal vigilance.

Do the pics show the landing site and the flags? No, as I explained, Hubble can only just resolve 80 meter objects on the Moon as tiny specks. It doesn't have the resolution to see the Apollo remains. This isn't just taking on faith the pronouncements of NASA about Hubble's capabilities, either - it's based on a knowledge of optical physics, which has formulae (Rayleigh's Criterion, in this case) that lets you calculate the smallest observable object for a telescope of a given size. If you plug in the numbers, you find out that in order to see the lunar rover on the Moon you'd need a telescope about 250 meters across. About one hundred times larger than Hubble.

Joel the K said...

You can get scientists to argue both sides of it Paul. So it comes down to belief. You believe they did. I believe they did not. This moon thing is not really a pressing issue. I am not prepared to invest the time required to argue with you. It is a waste of time. If you don't like what you read here, then make a blog of your own. Thank you for your visit.

Paul said...

You can get scientists to argue both sides of it Paul.So you should have no problem with providing the names of actual scientists who do, whether or not they are arguing within their field, and whether or not their arguments hold up to close examination. Otherwise this is just meaningless avoidance of the actual issues.

So it comes down to belief. You believe they did. I believe they did not.Uh, no. No, it doesn't come down to that. That is the worst sort of argument imaginable, and one that invalidates any form of inquiry and evidentiary evaluation. Why not just stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LALALALA" while you're at it?

This moon thing is not really a pressing issue. I am not prepared to invest the time required to argue with you. It is a waste of time. If you don't like what you read here, then make a blog of your own.Uh huh. Let's quote your OP: The suprising thing was, I only got one comment from those who believe in that fiasco...please explain to Patriots Cave and it's readers...Please explain...Please tell me...I could go on and on. Send me your rebuttle to this post and I will. So you invite comments and profess an ability and willingness to continue the debate, but as soon as someone turns up who can actually walk the walk you wave your hand about how disinterested you actually are. I know you don't like snide language and insults unless you are making them, but you'll have to excuse me for calling you a coward without the courage of your convictions. You have no interest in the truth, this is just a convenient scapegoat for you to hang your kneejerk, as opposed to informed, dislike of government on.

I really, really dislike the government. I even really, really dislike NASA. I have had a lifelong interest in spaceflight, and it pains me to see a bloated bureaucracy passively (and occasionally actively) stifle private sector spaceflight development through poor choices, political interference and pork barreling. But that doesn't mean that pandering to self-serving lies about very real historical events is acceptable. Apollo happened, and there is a mountain of real evidence to back this up. All of the hoax accusations are carefully crafted to appear plausible to the casual observer who has no background in the subject and no inclination to dig deeper. Your continued unwillingness to address my rebuttal, and your sudden disinterest in even discussing the subject, says to me that you are petulant about having your bubble burst, and (perhaps just subconsciously) know that your arguments are nonsense.

Paul said...

Oho. Mr Free Speech is a hypocrite and has suddenly developed a taste for moderating comments.

Coward.

Joel the K said...

Well said. Again. Do YOU have a blog Paul?

Paul said...

Not yet. I've only just joined Blogger.

Joel the K said...

Okay Paul. You might want to start a blog. You have much to offer your people. If you do start one, please come back here to the cave and let us know what it is.

Joel the K said...

Paul, how did you find Patriots Cave?

Paul said...

I was googling on an unrelated issue - a guy who had a "Don't tread on me" bumper sticker and got pulled over and interrogated by the cops.

Joel the K said...

Paul, how come you don't have a profile when I click your name? Just curious. I posted a retraction today. I hope you will accept my apology.

Paul said...

I only signed up for gmail originally. I've been thinking about blogging, but so far haven't decided on format.

Thanks for the retraction. No problem.

I really do urge you to visit the hoax busting site I linked to in one of my posts. If you can read through all of Dave Cosnette's nonsense on his Cosmic Apollo site, it would only be fair, and do you a world of good, to be exposed to a non-technical page that debunks all of it in easy to understand language. Like I said before, intellectual freedom comes with a price, and making sure that you aren't being spoonfed lies or craziness is your responsibility, not anybody else's.

Joel the K said...

I did not moderate comments ever with the intention of not posting them. Paul was hitting me with so much, so fast, I was trying to keep up with it all. I posted every comment. I will remove moderation now that the barrage is over for the time. These last three comments did not come to my e-mail for some reason, today I found them on my dashboard page. It said: "3 comments need moderation".