Guess this guy never played orbiter

[agentgonzo]

Better to take the high road and ignore him the way you ignore any other cult leader standing on a street corner yelling nonsense. Or...

...trolling him (as opposed to arguing), on the other hand, can be fun. Irritation is a useful skill, and entertaining to boot.

Spot on. These are the only two actions worth any time or effort. Which one I choose depends on my mood.

 

[RisingFury]

Technically speaking: NASA cannot and will not engage in any sort of controversy.

from THIS all of the information that they give must be factual and available for review.

And that is the Law, and the right of the first amendment as well.

Sad, but true

This is actually good. NASA shouldn't even acknowledge people like these by going into a debate about the Moon landings.

 

[tblaxland]

Just one minor correction, Tommy. A Hohmann transfer from LEO to the Moon takes about 5.5 days, not 2.5 weeks. Otherwise, good work.

 

[Tommy]

Must have been really boring at work.

Well, I work part time at the town theatre, and there's really not much to do while the movie is playing. On a typical night with two shows I "work" for 5 hours, but I only have to actually do anything for about an hour and a half of it. That leaves me 3 and a half hours to taunt the idiots. I also love to mess with the flat Earth folks.

A Hohmann transfer from LEO to the Moon takes about 5.5 days, not 2.5 weeks.

I can't argue, it been a few years since I did one that way, but it seemed to be much longer. Unfortunately, the comp at work is too lame to run Orbiter, and now that I'm home it's too late to try it tonight. Oh well, it's pretty obvious he's not educated enough to figure that out.

I especially love it how it seems that there are moments of barely-constrained fury underneath the words.

yeah, my bad. it's just that this kind of thing seems to actually offend me for some reason when they try to spread the disease known as "chronic stupidity".

 

[James.Denholm]

I can't argue, it been a few years since I did one that way, but it seemed to be much longer. Unfortunately, the comp at work is too lame to run Orbiter, and now that I'm home it's too late to try it tonight. Oh well, it's pretty obvious he's not educated enough to figure that out.

Well, if he replies with more sensless arguments, you could always include a post-script apologizing for innacuracies in your first e-mail. After all, people are only human, and we all make mistakes.
Unless you're Chuck Norris or something.

yeah, my bad. it's just that this kind of thing seems to actually offend me for some reason when they try to spread the disease known as "chronic stupidity".

Oh, no, I'm not criticizing you there, I'm complementing you. It's good, occasionally, to get angry. Better to take it out on a conspiracy theorist than a random guy complaining about the quality of the theater's pop-corn.

 

[n72.75]

although conspericy theorists suck, it is nessecery to a heanthy soceity.
if no one asks the question, the question is never answered. i would like to kick the guy in what ever kind of reproductive organs he might have just as much as the rest of you.

in reality though its just waisted energy, there needs to be people who are wrong, in order for there to be people who are right.

just ingore people like that.

 

[Hielor]

although conspericy theorists suck, it is nessecery to a heanthy soceity.
if no one asks the question, the question is never answered. i would like to kick the guy in what ever kind of reproductive organs he might have just as much as the rest of you.

in reality though its just waisted energy, there needs to be people who are wrong, in order for there to be people who are right.

just ingore people like that.

Except that then you end up with people believing the falsehoods because they are too lazy to go find out the truth.

 

[tblaxland]

there needs to be people who are wrong, in order for there to be people who are right.

So, there needs to be people that believe the sky is green, in order for me to know that it is blue? :huh:

 

[Tommy]

Oh, no, I'm not criticizing you there, I'm complementing you. It's good, occasionally, to get angry. Better to take it out on a conspiracy theorist than a random guy complaining about the quality of the theater's pop-corn.

I was being a little sarcastic there, the whole "barely muted fury" thing seems to be a talent for me. Not something I'm all that proud of, it a bit confrontational, but in popeye's words, I yam what I yam.

the popcorn comment made me laugh, the same guy who owns the theatre in my town also owns the one a couple towns over. Both use the exact same kettle at the exact same temp, in the exact same popper, and use the exact same ingredients since he buys for both at the same time and just shuffles the oil and kernels around. Yet many people claim that one theatre's corn is better than the others. Go figure!

Incidently, here is his reply:

The data was taken from the mentioned book. If data is incorrect then book is incorrect. In the meantime I suggest you look at the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF FAKERY, AND TRY AND EXPLAIN THAT AWAY

Here is my reply to that (thanks to Urwumpe for the heads-up about Bochum):

OK, so the book is wrong. You obviously have internet access and could have done a little research and found that out for your self. Google is your friend. You could have at least TRIED to verify your sources.

As to the overwhelming evidence, I just don't see it. I've already discredited pretty much all the "evidence" you have presented. I've presented corrected facts, and offered innocent explanations for the other suppositions you have made. Occam's Razor supports the simple, innocent reason behind the photo editing over a massive conspiracy.

I'm not trying to prove that man did land on the moon, I really don't know. I have no first hand evidence either way. I have simply pointed out that your "evidence" is not backed by any real facts, and in many cases is contrary to the known facts and science behind spaceflight. In other words, you have completely failed to make your case. you make far to many assumptions. You assume that because the photo's were edited, they were faked, when the simpler, more logical assumption is that they were edited for ascetic purposes the same way that every other photo on the web is. After all, film photo's don't transfer to the electronic medium very well without some "adjusting". The primary colors in film are Red, Blue and Yellow: the primary colors on a computer display are Red, Blue and Green.

The Bochum Observatory in Germany provides independant (not associate with NASA or the US government) evidence supporting moon landings. This evidence includes recordings of the radio transmissions from the Apollo spacecrafts, complete with directional gain antenna tracking and Doppler shift tracking showing the transmissions originated from the correct locations.

Here are some links to further your research efforts:

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/bochum/main.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
(as the above is a wikipedia link, a certain skeptisism is understandable, even advisable)

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/s..._astronomers_produce_original_Apollo_TV_tapes.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/bochum/index.html
(this one has links to recordings made at Bochum about halfway down the page)

You have provided no real evidence to support your position, only suppositions clearly based on a preconception that the landings were faked. You claim that a "trans lunar orbit" is impossible, but provide no sciencetific facts that supprot that. You claim that cosmic radiation makes a moon trip impossibe, but your only "evidence" is an excerpt (taken out of context) from a NASA scientist trying to expain the difficulties in a 16 month (each way) Mars trip, not a 10 day moon trip.

The fact that the photo's could have been faked does not mean that they were - that would be an assumption based on faulty logic. Infact, several people have made "fake" photo's to see if the "you shouldn't be able to see that because it's in a shadow" argument is valid. Without exception these tests have shown that the phoros could be real.

In short, there is absolutely no HARD scientific evidence to support a hoax theory. Every argument the conspiracy theory people such as yourself has presented has been shown to be a "maybe" at best.

Here's a link to a site that test the "conspiracy theory's" arguments (including test's done by TV's Mythbusters.)

http://www.clavius.org/

In summation, the fact that the moon landings could have been faked does NOT prove that they were, any more than the fact that they could have been real proves they were. We can only rely on the actual evidence provideded by independant sources such as Bochum Observatory, and the evidence leans quite heavily towards the landing being real.

Also, I find it rather suspect that you have provided no personal credentials to show that you have a sufficient scientific background to have a valid opinion on this matter to begin with. What college degrees do you have in Science, Math, Physics, or Astronomy? What experience do you have that makes you qualified to even make an educated guess?

dozens of actual scientists (who aren't in any way associated with NASA or the Space Program) have consistantly shot down EVERY piece of so-called "evidence" presented by the conpiracy theorists such as yourself. Why should I believe you (when you've clearly demonstrated a lack of scientific knowelege concerning spacflight in general) over them?

A rational person would open themselves up to the possibility that the moon landings could have actually happened.

It's nice to have a hobby since I've been laid off the day job!

 

[Rathelm]

I give you credit for replying to him after his reply to your 500+ word post was a single sentence.

As for the laid off thing it sucks. I got laid off in November after working for the company for 10 years.

 

[Ghostrider]

Is anyone going to put forth the effort to enlighten this poor soul?

No. Waste of time. Let's beat him up.

 

[Tommy]

I give you credit for replying to him after his reply to your 500+ word post was a single sentence.

It's cheap entertainment! I'm just toying with him. Notice that even though I believe man has in fact landed on the moon, I'm trying to shift the argument from a "did/didn't" to a "could have/ couldn't have". I've never even claimed that it did happen, only that his arguments are invalid, illogical, and downright irrational. I'm also trying to avoid a direct insult, since that would only make him ignore me even faster.

 

[Messierhunter]

I applaud your effort Tommy. Right now I'm arguing with a conspiracy theorist who is trying to impugn my integrity by insisting that my youtube video of ISS is fake (because the ISS is a hoax, of course). We need more people like you to intelligently counter these people in the hope that at least some small percentage of them will wake up and realize how uninformed they've been. On their own turf they're entertaining to watch, but they can become downright irritating when they start accusing others of lying.

 

[Pilot7893]

insisting that my youtube video of ISS is fake (because the ISS is a hoax, of course)

ಠ_ಠ

 

[Tommy]

Here's his latest reply. (the subject line is "clear the sh** from your eyes", asterisks provided by me):

The photo's have proven to be fake, neither can one go beyond Earth orbit, even NASA themselves have stated that fact. That in itself makes the Moonlandings fake. Study the detail in greater depth and get real.

And my latest troll in return:

It has been proven that the Photo's were altered, but altered does not mean they were entirely fake. For instance, you can't find a photo of Carmen Elektra "online OR in print) that hasn't been altered in some way. By your standards I guess that means she doesn't exist?

Incidently, you quote Dan Golden (who was an ADMINISTRATOR, not a SCIENTIST) but neglect to give a link to the material in question. I have found this quote from him also:

"“But if we ever want to leave Earth orbit, we're going to have to figure out how people live and work safely and efficiently with ever-increasing productivity in space. We cannot do it on the ground.”

That's a far cry from "cannot leave orbit". And I point out once again that going to the Moon is NOT leaving Earth's orbit. The Moon does, after all, orbit the Earth. Unless you believe the Moon doesn't really exist, and is being faked by NASA and doesn't really exist.

His comment in the McDonald interview was in response to a question about whether NASA would be building a moon base, or making a Mars trip. As I stated earlier, LONG TERM space travel is a problem. The NASA video you link to (your link is dead, BTW. Try this: http://nasaarchives.imagefortress.c...omorrow-episode-25-radiation-and-space-travel ) does not support your theory either. If you had paid attention, you would have learned that there are two kinds of radiation that are of concern. Galactic Cosmic Radiation is a concern during an extended stay is space, but not a real problem for short stays. Solar radiation is a danger during short term missions ONLY if there is a Coronal Mass Ejection during the flight. The Apollo missions were flown during the "Solar Low" prtion of the 11 year cycle, and there were no CME's during those flights. In fact, there was only one CME during the whole Apollo era, and it took place between missions. It was a risk, but considered (at the time) an acceptable risk. Human undertanding of the effects of radiation of ALL kinds (not just GCR and Solar) were very limited during the Apollo era. Since then OSHA has passes regulations to limit this exposure - but those regulations did not exist in the 60's.

While I have continued to refute the "evidence" that you claim, you have yet to respond to any of the evidence I have presented, such as the independant observations at Bochum. You simply fall back on the faulty premise that since the photo's were edited, the whole thing must be fake. Occams Razor dictates otherwise.

Getting angry and cursing at me certainly doesn't help your case - it's a sign of frustration that you can't counter my logic with any logic of your own.

I can hear his teeth grinding from here!

 

[Major Tom]

moon orbit

What is the most efficient direction to orbit then land on the moon? Is it west to east?

 

[pete.dakota]

We didn't land on the Moon. I mean, the Moon is made of cheese, so the exhaust from the LEM's decent engine would have melted the ground below the lander, making a safe landing impossible - it's called the "Fondue Principle".

 

[Artlav]

I can hear his teeth grinding from here!

And he probably looks at your email, thinks "another ****load of text from that deluded ***", and sends some first-sight comment along with "wake up already! Stop pretending this world is real!" thing.

 

[David]

Do you mean a plot of the gravity field potential inside your orbit plane?

Actually, a plot of gravitational potential (if it were practical to implement) would be hugely welcome - especially for illustrating Lagrange Point stability, and maybe some other stuff.

 

[Pilot7893]

I met someone on Youtube once who was convinced the Space Shuttle was fake. When I told him I have seen a shuttle launch, he says they are simply unmanned missiles that detonate at high altitude, and Challenger was an error where it detonated too early. I asked him to explain the landings many people see every time, and he says they are released from the 747, much like in the Enteprise tests, then glide to the runway. I say "But in all the landing videos, the 747 is nowhere to be found." He replies "Well dumb@$$, if you'd just stopped to think that maybe it's at high altitude, you wouldn't be making such stupid comments." Seriosly, ಠ_ಠ