Re: moon landings.
« Reply #40 on: September 21, 2014, 12:25:45 AM »
Hi Gulliver,

My comment was that the salient records have been "lost".  The original high quality video images have been "lost".  If we wish to examine the detailed construction drawings of the appollo hardwared, BOM etc etc we simply cannot do that because they have been "lost".   

If the Apollo mission myth were true, it would represent the greatest achievement of mankind.  If we wish to do this excursion again, then the detailed construction drawings, BOM and project documents would be vital.  Instead, we have a litany of apologetics... e.g.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/one-giant-blunder-for-mankind-how-nasa-lost-moon-pictures/2006/08/04/1154198328978.html

So, despite the fact that I have provided you with a reference that unambiguously declares that the blueprints DO NOT EXIST  "A complete set of blueprints of the world's first Particle Accelerator don't survive to this day nor does the very first aircraft, HMS Victory or even the Titanic. Does it mean that they didn't exist or were not built? It's another ridiculous claim."  ..  Gulliver makes the statement that I am supporting the view that the documents do exist.

The above quote is AN APOLOGIST attempt to explain why there are no SALIENT blueprints.... after all... we can't expect anyone to keep them can we? 

The unambiguous point that I am making is that NO SALIENT EXAMINABLE DOCUMENTATION now exists which I can use to allay my skepticism.

You and I arguing about whether it did or didn't exist in the past IS NOT the point of my original posting.

Your comments on decompression are quite different to what is in my memory about door opening... I will get back to you on that.

PS Gulliver, are you interested in having a FE discussion which I will record for possible use on Markus Allens "truth in 7 minutes" ?

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2526
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2014, 12:50:18 AM »
If the Apollo mission myth were true, it would represent the greatest achievement of mankind.  If we wish to do this excursion again, then the detailed construction drawings, BOM and project documents would be vital.
Why would NASA have any of the blueprints when a variety of contractors designed and built all of the equipment?
« Last Edit: September 21, 2014, 12:51:54 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3709
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #42 on: September 21, 2014, 12:55:21 AM »
I think the point that Gulliver is actually making is that there are good reasons independent of NASA documentation to believe the Aplollo missions happened. To be honest, I am not sure how a blueprint is convincing evidence in the first place. You can get blueprints of the Starship Enterprise after all. The fact that amateur radio operators the world over intercepted radio communications from space that were identical to the NASA transcripts seems, in my mind, much more convincing. Or perhaps the unique geology of moon rocks might be convincing to you.
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

Re: moon landings.
« Reply #43 on: September 21, 2014, 03:54:50 AM »
so the bottom line for me is this.  In my everyday life I experience the world as being flat.  I can see ships in the distant horizon with the use of a telescope down to the waterline when they should have long disappeared over the horizon.  In my work as a mining engineer, I never make any allowance for the putative curvature of the earth.  To my knowledge, there is not a single real world application of geodetics.  Any bridge, canal, railroad or tunnel constructed assumed that the earth is flat and this continues to be the case today.  I constantly request a 3D model of the putative sea level globe in its entirety and I am simply unable to shake one loose.

There is a series of four well known astronomical observations which clearly demonstrate that the motion of the sun is geocentric and not heliocentric.

To offset this, we have the images of NASA and the space program.  Werner Von Braun is mostly known for his Disney publications and films.  The first director of NASA came from Paramount studios http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Keith_Glennan

The Apollo missions coincided with the film A Space Odyssey.  As discussed above, the salient documentation to verify these missions has been lost.  The machinery that is on display is just not capable, in my humble opinion, of performing the tasks that have been claimed for them.    Moreover, the physics of the mission are clearly demonstrating that the mission could not have taken place. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm .  In particular, Anders notes that "You cannot step on a 200° hot surface of any kind in vacuum without melting your protective gear and getting burnt. "

This thread commenced with the claim that a CGI rendering proved that a photograph purportedly of a man on the moon proves that the photo is genuine.  Gulliver has commented that I have not provided "proof" that key documents have gone missing.  On both of these last points, I would suggest that I have had a COMPREHENSIVE vindication of my views.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2014, 06:12:02 AM by anounceofsaltperday »

Re: moon landings.
« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2014, 08:36:50 AM »
so the bottom line for me is this.  In my everyday life I experience the world as being flat.  I can see ships in the distant horizon with the use of a telescope down to the waterline when they should have long disappeared over the horizon.  In my work as a mining engineer, I never make any allowance for the putative curvature of the earth.  To my knowledge, there is not a single real world application of geodetics.  Any bridge, canal, railroad or tunnel constructed assumed that the earth is flat and this continues to be the case today.  I constantly request a 3D model of the putative sea level globe in its entirety and I am simply unable to shake one loose.

There is a series of four well known astronomical observations which clearly demonstrate that the motion of the sun is geocentric and not heliocentric.

To offset this, we have the images of NASA and the space program.  Werner Von Braun is mostly known for his Disney publications and films.  The first director of NASA came from Paramount studios http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Keith_Glennan

The Apollo missions coincided with the film A Space Odyssey.  As discussed above, the salient documentation to verify these missions has been lost.  The machinery that is on display is just not capable, in my humble opinion, of performing the tasks that have been claimed for them.    Moreover, the physics of the mission are clearly demonstrating that the mission could not have taken place. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm .  In particular, Anders notes that "You cannot step on a 200° hot surface of any kind in vacuum without melting your protective gear and getting burnt. "

This thread commenced with the claim that a CGI rendering proved that a photograph purportedly of a man on the moon proves that the photo is genuine.  Gulliver has commented that I have not provided "proof" that key documents have gone missing.  On both of these last points, I would suggest that I have had a COMPREHENSIVE vindication of my views.


No all you have offered is opinion.

You have also failed to recognise that the image is a photo of a physics engine simulation that uses known physical values to replicate perfectly what we see in the original photo. It's not a computer generated drawing as you keep on trying to suggest.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2014, 08:40:35 AM by Pythagoras »

Re: moon landings.
« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2014, 09:05:16 AM »
??????  Wasn't the simulation performed on a computer?

Doesn't all CGI use the laws of physics?

Isn't this the definition of CGI?  Just better simulations used?

Of course of the above is true.  Another COMPREHENSIVE vindication for me.

Re: moon landings.
« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2014, 09:08:55 AM »
??????  Wasn't the simulation performed on a computer?

Doesn't all CGI use the laws of physics?


Isn't this the definition of CGI?  Just better simulations used?

Of course of the above is true.  Another COMPREHENSIVE vindication for me.

No CGI has no need to follow the laws of physics any more than a painting does.

Stop embarrassing your self.

And this is a computer generated model/simulation not a computer generated image.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2014, 09:14:38 AM by Pythagoras »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2014, 10:09:19 AM »
I have a point relevant to your claim, and am awaiting response. If you don't have one, that's fine - all you need to do is simply say so. If you didn't wanted to be subjected to basic scrutiny, you shouldn't have made a claim. Pointing out that you screwed up is not a personal attack - at no point did I attack you, merely your preparation and thoroughness. Unfortunately, this time you forgot to find out what a personal attack is before claiming that one took place.
Sorry, I don't see your point about my claim. Perhaps taking the effort to quote would better support your position.

I do see at least one personal attack you made.
...[Yo]u're almost ready to start using the English language. A few more interventions and maybe you'll stop screwing up.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5278
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #48 on: September 21, 2014, 10:29:52 AM »
Sorry, I don't see your point about my claim. Perhaps taking the effort to quote would better support your position.
I don't think so. I generally view you as a person capable of reading, so if you had any intention of responding, you'd already have done so. Since you didn't, I'll just assume you forfeit and move on. You're welcome to amend this at any time.

I do see at least one personal attack you made.
...[Y]ou're almost ready to start using the English language. A few more interventions and maybe you'll stop screwing up.
Ah, so you don't understand what a personal attack is. Let me explain: telling you that you constantly screw up and that you're not capable of using the English language to facilitate communication is not a personal attack - it's an assessment of your knowledge and actions. At no point did I attack your person, merely your knowledge and judgement. The two are easy to mix up, but a criticism of your ideas, beliefs, and actions is not equivalent to a criticism of your person.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2014, 10:31:23 AM by pizaaplanet »
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3709
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2014, 10:33:39 AM »
This is a pretty disingenuous statement pizaa. Sarcastically condescending to someone is meant to belittle.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2014, 10:48:17 AM by Rama Set »
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #50 on: September 21, 2014, 11:14:31 AM »
...http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/one-giant-blunder-for-mankind-how-nasa-lost-moon-pictures/2006/08/04/1154198328978.html ...
The article is outdated, from 2006. A restoration project recovered quite a bit. See: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11_hdpage.html#.VB63fPn85mM
...So, despite the fact that I have provided you with a reference that unambiguously declares that the blueprints DO NOT EXIST...
No, you did not. Please read that source again after you spend a few minutes ensuring that you understand the purpose and use of a rhetoric sentence, especially one used as a sub-title to introduce the hoax claim the author is about to debunk. Thanks. (This is the second time I've had to point out your error here, so I please ask you to apply some extra diligence now. Thanks.)
...I can see ships in the distant horizon with the use of a telescope down to the waterline when they should have long disappeared over the horizon....
OMG! That is so awesome. Even other FEers say that can't be done, and you can. You're amazing. Heck, FET has not one, but two, wild speculative "theories" about the reason you can't. See FE's AWT and EA (with a non-zero Bishop Constant).

Please document your breathtaking ability. Wouldn't you just need a good camera (or cell phone) with video and zoom? I think that randi.org would be very happy to award you their $1,000,000 prize. I even think you'd quickly win the Nobel Prize too! Do it for everyone. I'm sure that you'll be the FES's hero of the decade.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2014, 11:36:35 AM by Gulliver »
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5278
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #51 on: September 21, 2014, 11:18:45 AM »
This is a pretty disingenuous statement pizaa. Sarcastically condescending to someone is meant to belittle.
I do apologise if what I said came across as sarcastic or condescending - I was making a genuine comment on Gulliver's ability to communicate based on the evidence presented.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #52 on: September 21, 2014, 11:28:11 AM »
This is a pretty disingenuous statement pizaa. Sarcastically condescending to someone is meant to belittle.
I do apologise if what I said came across as sarcastic or condescending - I was making a genuine comment on Gulliver's ability to communicate based on the evidence presented.
I agree with Rama Set. Whether you believe that your opinion is true is irrelevant. Now please address the topic, and stop the personal attacks.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: moon landings.
« Reply #53 on: September 21, 2014, 11:57:58 AM »
Gulliver, once again I simply reiterate to claim victory in this discussion.  The reference post http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/25.html clearly states, in its way, that we do not have the blueprints in one place and why should we?  Furthermore, we do not have all the blueprints and why should we?  Since they don't have them, I remain sceptical.

The video site you directed me to is a "restoration" .  What is it a restoration of?  The crappy video?  Apparently the pics we saw were televised screen projections, not even direct feed.  My scepticism is unappeased.

Finally, tell me about this money I can claim... I look forward to it... sadly for you, the Bedford canal experiment is easily repeated on Victoria's Port Phillip Bay.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #54 on: September 21, 2014, 12:34:04 PM »
Gulliver, once again I simply reiterate to claim victory in this discussion.  The reference post http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/25.html clearly states, in its way, that we do not have the blueprints in one place and why should we?  Furthermore, we do not have all the blueprints and why should we?  Since they don't have them, I remain sceptical.

The video site you directed me to is a "restoration" .  What is it a restoration of?  The crappy video?  Apparently the pics we saw were televised screen projections, not even direct feed.  My scepticism is unappeased.

Finally, tell me about this money I can claim... I look forward to it... sadly for you, the Bedford canal experiment is easily repeated on Victoria's Port Phillip Bay.
Again, the referenced post is clearly a rhetorical sentence. You cannot claim victory. I highlighted the telltale quotation marks for you below:

You're welcome to remain skeptical, but you really should re-examine the level of detail you require. Seriously?

The restoration project documentation is online and available, so I won't bother to answer your questions here. Yes, you saw the live feed. That the radio waves had to travel and be converted several times is hardly important, but hey it's your standard.

I've provided you with enough for you to research the prizes involved. They're both famous. I'm sure that you can use Google. How long until you can upload your  documentation?

I don't understand the reason you think that it's unfortunate for me that you can repeat an experiment. I'm all for new documentation. That is what Science thrives on. Of course, your unsubstantiated claims are not worth much. I'm sure you understand the extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation. All the best in your endeavors.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2014, 12:48:40 PM by Gulliver »
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5278
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #55 on: September 21, 2014, 12:44:54 PM »
Whether you believe that your opinion is true is irrelevant.
Of course, but that's not what I'm claiming. I'm simply pointing out that making an evidence-based assessment of your abilities is not a personal attack.

Now please address the topic
I'm waiting for you to address the topic. No input from me is possible until you stop the derailment and address it. Since the only input you provided so far is an expression of lack of understanding of what a personal attack is, we've been focusing on that. You have ultimate control over how the rest of our conversation will go.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2526
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #56 on: September 21, 2014, 03:29:14 PM »
In particular, Anders notes that "You cannot step on a 200° hot surface of any kind in vacuum without melting your protective gear and getting burnt. "
Anders has little faith in materials engineers.  Has he (or you) never heard of high temperature silicone kitchenware?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Bird with a broken wing
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #57 on: September 21, 2014, 06:13:40 PM »
In particular, Anders notes that "You cannot step on a 200° hot surface of any kind in vacuum without melting your protective gear and getting burnt. "
Anders has little faith in materials engineers.  Has he (or you) never heard of high temperature silicone kitchenware?
Do you use that in a vacuum often?
Quote from: garygreen date=1480782226
i also took an online quiz that said i was a giraffe.  and i guess you're dumb enough to believe that i must be because the internet said so.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #58 on: September 21, 2014, 06:20:56 PM »
In particular, Anders notes that "You cannot step on a 200° hot surface of any kind in vacuum without melting your protective gear and getting burnt. "
Anders has little faith in materials engineers.  Has he (or you) never heard of high temperature silicone kitchenware?
Do you use that in a vacuum often?
Did you mean to imply that the Moon's lack of atmosphere would change the effect of the insulation between the moon walker and the lunar surface? See: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=13594.0
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2526
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: moon landings.
« Reply #59 on: September 21, 2014, 06:49:13 PM »
In particular, Anders notes that "You cannot step on a 200° hot surface of any kind in vacuum without melting your protective gear and getting burnt. "
Anders has little faith in materials engineers.  Has he (or you) never heard of high temperature silicone kitchenware?
Do you use that in a vacuum often?
Can you give me any good reasons why high temperature silicone (or any of a large number of high temperature thermal insulators) shouldn't work in a vacuum?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.