Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge  (Read 30460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
« Reply #140 on: June 09, 2018, 02:16:29 AM »
Still smarting from my thorough dismantling of Kaysing? Or was it my linking to that great evisceration of you by claudel?

AFAIK I have to shell out $3 to watch the Kubrick video. Hey Smedley, could you just relate to me the points made in the video?
.
Thorough dismantling of Kaysing? In your dreams. You sound a lot like the Chicken, Ladislaus.
He's not going to "go one for one" with you because he hasn't got the patience for detail.
And your false idol claudel couldn't hurt a flea. Try again.
.
Like this entire thread, you say you have "no hard science knowledge" and yet you want to argue science material? 
Let me guess, that was the punch line, right?

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
« Reply #141 on: June 09, 2018, 03:48:03 AM »
How about the interview talking about how NASA "destroyed" the technology to go to the Moon, and now they have to re-discover it? They also put forth "travelling through the Van Allen Belts" as another obstacle they need to overcome.

Really?

How does any science type perform the mental gymnastics necessary to swallow THAT whopper? I mean, give me a break!
.
For someone to believe that line of bull they would have to be oblivious to how engineering and the sciences work. There are people still alive today who worked on the space program, and everyone who did, shared his experience with other fellow scientists. Many of them were sworn to secrecy, true, and there is a limiting effect there, but when they get together and share stories without snoopers listening in, they continue the knowledge and it gets carried on. There is no way that discoveries in radiation shielding technology or so-called air conditioning of space suits or silver-zinc batteries or applications with emulsion film cameras on the lunar surface or fuel efficiency for half-million mile lunar space flights would have been entirely forgotten by those who built the system.


Offline rum

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
« Reply #142 on: June 09, 2018, 06:07:18 AM »
.
Thorough dismantling of Kaysing? In your dreams. You sound a lot like the Chicken, Ladislaus.
He's not going to "go one for one" with you because he hasn't got the patience for detail.
And your false idol claudel couldn't hurt a flea. Try again.
.
Like this entire thread, you say you have "no hard science knowledge" and yet you want to argue science material?
Let me guess, that was the punch line, right?
It was a thorough dismantling to my mind. But not of all the hoax theories, just that Kaysing video. I posted it with the expectation that you would reply to it. You posted it for me to watch and then reacted in an incredibly bizarre way.

You knew from the start that I didn't have a hard science background, so if that's the minimal criterion you deem sufficient for discussing this subject then you never should have bothered trying to convince me.

You must think I post on this thread in bad faith. No, my curiosity is genuine. You're foul beyond belief.

Offline rum

Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
« Reply #143 on: June 09, 2018, 06:10:02 AM »
I read this on apollohoax.net in response to the issue of missing telemetry data.


Quote
This argument presumes that NASA should have curated the tapes in the certain way the conspiracy theorists impose.  That imposition is based on erroneous notions such as the telemetry tapes being the "original" records of the mission, especially of the television coverage.  The process of converting the embedded television signal to a standard signal, such that it could be playable by ordinary video equipment, was accomplished "on the fly" during the mission by highly specialized, custom-built equipment.  The telemetry tapes were retained temporarily only against the possibility that such an on-the-fly conversion would have failed.  Reading the tapes themselves requires large, finicky equipment, only one example of which has survived.  While the telemetry tapes are the original recordings, they are not the primary source of data, nor an especially useful source.  Only in very recent years have new techniques arisen to glean more from them than the original plan called for.

They are also very large.  Each tape is the size of a trash-can lid and records only 15 minutes worth of telemetry.  They are very expensive and very bulky to store.  And in the early 1970s they were also quite rare.  Memorex, the company that supplied the original tapes, used whale oil in the binder.  With the advent of the Endangered Species Act, they were called upon to find a more environmentally responsible method.  They were not able to do it in time, and NASA was forced to re-use Apollo tapes for ongoing missions.  They did not explicitly use the Apollo 11 tapes, but the tapes were not labeled in a way that made it easy for technicians to identify them in time.

In short, the claim that NASA somehow intentionally destroyed the original records of Apollo 11 is ludicrous.  The telemetry tapes themselves were useful only so that data could be extracted from them later, which was done.  The data they contained is safe.  The telemetry recordings themselves are a red herring.


Unconvincing?



Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
« Reply #144 on: June 09, 2018, 11:20:14 AM »
Still smarting from my thorough dismantling of Kaysing? Or was it my linking to that great evisceration of you by claudel?

AFAIK I have to shell out $3 to watch the Kubrick video. Hey Smedley, could you just relate to me the points made in the video?
You can't spring for the 3 bucks??
Its worth every penny.
If you want an esoteric symbolism-only explanation of what Kubrick did, minus the technical aspects, this one is good :