Whenever I'm confronted with a hoaxer I make them watch Dave Scott's experiment and challenge them to replicate it on Earth....
Quote from: cpcjr on 07/10/2008 07:01 pmQuote from: Webhamster on 07/10/2008 06:24 pmWhenever I'm confronted with a hoaxer I make them watch Dave Scott's experiment and challenge them to replicate it on Earth....I do recall one time seeing an attempt to duplicate it on Earth.They did get the feather and hamer to fall at about the same rate but there was trick to it. They held the feather perpendicular to the ground, which naturaly reduces its air resitence.However if you look closly at Dave Scott's experiment he held the feather parallel to the ground which would have maximized its air resitence on Earth.Some one not whatching closely may not have seen the difference. This is known as a bait and switch tactic.One could conceivably replicate this effect in the Space Environmental Simulation Laboratory, or similar facility, eliminating any significant air resistance, combined with a 1/6g slow-motion effect. Not that I believe it was done, but just to be prepared for the argument. Of course, if it was done, someone would have proof and would have talked by now.
Quote from: Webhamster on 07/10/2008 06:24 pmWhenever I'm confronted with a hoaxer I make them watch Dave Scott's experiment and challenge them to replicate it on Earth....I do recall one time seeing an attempt to duplicate it on Earth.They did get the feather and hamer to fall at about the same rate but there was trick to it. They held the feather perpendicular to the ground, which naturaly reduces its air resitence.However if you look closly at Dave Scott's experiment he held the feather parallel to the ground which would have maximized its air resitence on Earth.Some one not whatching closely may not have seen the difference. This is known as a bait and switch tactic.
Nowhere have I ever seen that they claim that the lift-off was faked...i mean, how can you ignore something that big and that loud?So the lift-off was real.
I have never heard any of them say that the orbit and rendezvous of all the Gemini missions were faked...
And I've never heard any of them say that sitting in an Apollo Capsule for 3 days on the way to the Moon was more difficult than sitting in a Gemini or Apollo capsule orbiting the Earth.
One good question for the hoax crowd would be to ask: What kind of evidence they would consider proof that the Moon landings were real?
Quote from: haywoodfloyd on 07/10/2008 03:47 pmI have never heard any of them say that the orbit and rendezvous of all the Gemini missions were faked...This I see quite oftenly, a lot of conspiracy nuts don't believe we went to space at all. A smaller fraction of that don't believe that there's space at all. ... or a Moon...
Quote from: cpcjr on 07/17/2008 12:39 pmOne good question for the hoax crowd would be to ask: What kind of evidence they would consider proof that the Moon landings were real?That's the real problem here, the answer would be that there is no such evidence, of course, because the moon landings are fake obviously... You can't argue with someone who doesn't know how arguing works...
Then what exactly is it that we see in the sky? The existance of the Moon is real easy to prove, just look up in the sky on most clear nights and there it is.
Which would only prove that there is no evidence that would change their mind and thus make any descussion a waste of time.
(...) To the arrogant cynics of today, to the nihilistic young of today, to those who prefer conspiracy theories to history, to those who hate science and math or learning in general, to those of a liberal bent who reject the stunning achievement of the most visionary of goals ever set by a democratic President, to those who simply hate anyone and anything older than them, to those secretly envious because it did not happen in their world, on their watch, in their generation -- perhaps no proof, no words, no evidence is sufficient. (...)
Why did we collectively fail to follow on it? Why, after Apollo, does US manned spaceflight seem to be stagnating? Didn't we give "them" a weapon by failing to establish a Moon base for so many years? By failing to build a sustainable manned spaceflight infrastructure? Isn't $17 billion per year enough?Apollo was a great success, so naturally, as the next step, we should be able to improve on it. To push the envelope. To go to the next level. But the sad truth is, as a nation, we have failed to out do ourselves. We can't, so far, in principle, improve on the incredible achievement of Apollo. So what do we do? We go back to Apollo.But how did this happen? I believe that the problem was obviously partly political, partly technical, and partly economic.First to the economic question, I'm not so sure NASA has received at least $17 billion (in 2008 dollars?) since 1969. I don't have that information and conversion factors. But I suspect there were more than a few lean years. Maybe we need at least that much and maybe a lot more. I think it's worth it.Politically, JFK got us up to top speed with his Bold Directive, defined as a Space Race as a centerpiece for the Cold War. Then LBJ kept it going, but then there was Richard Milhous Nixon.
Then, within two years, Nixon and a democratic Congress let the ax fall. First, Apollo 18 was cancelled. Then Apollo 19 and 20 were gone. And all that magnificent Apollo momentum was totally gone.
The plan at that time was for Apollo to evolve into a Space-Tug for translunar operations and a Lunar-Shuttle for landings, while nearer to Earth, Skylab was to become the prototype for a Space-Station, to be serviced by a Space Shuttle. Skylab was well along the road and thus survived budget cuts. Of the rest of the bold plan, only some early developmental funding for the Shuttle survived.
Then the technical problems began, as it proved very difficult to develop and maintain a fully re-useable space vehicle. First off came major compromises in the design, cost over-runs and more, delays and more delays.
Quote from: cpcjr on 07/21/2008 02:39 pmThen what exactly is it that we see in the sky? The existance of the Moon is real easy to prove, just look up in the sky on most clear nights and there it is.Yet another alien or governmental (or both) device to fool the public. Of course this is a very extreme form of conspiracy stuff I find really rarely (thank god .
Quote from: Tschachim on 07/21/2008 04:08 pmQuote from: cpcjr on 07/21/2008 02:39 pmThen what exactly is it that we see in the sky? The existance of the Moon is real easy to prove, just look up in the sky on most clear nights and there it is.Yet another alien or governmental (or both) device to fool the public. Of course this is a very extreme form of conspiracy stuff I find really rarely (thank god . This gives conspiracy nuts a bad name. Its a total denial of reality.
Human nature, do NOT let it get to you.There is always a segment of society that believes strange things because they *want* to believe them, and of course plenty of people happy to exploit that. Simply provide the facts and oppose the nonsense in a calm way. It can get old, but view it as a chance to educate about science and skeptical thinking.