My last "They didn't go moon trip".
09-11-2007, 12:20 PM
#256
Ok, so it can be placed in a panorama, but i still hold to my claim and its not being evasive. I don't know just by looking unless i've been to that spot and you don't know just by looking unless you've been to that spot. You can't assume, especially to a place we've never been before, that things will happen a certain way because they won't on the moon. The moon's grav field is so different in areas that sometimes it can be a difference of feet. You can definitely say what you say about earth, but I don't think you can say about the moon. The astronauts could've been on an area where the gradients occur and that could've made a difference.
Next possibility I point out is it could've been the tires and the dirt pack. I should've pointed out that its not just the area the rover went through, but the area around it. How do you know that the dirt pack is deep in those areas just by looking at the picture and just assuming that since the tracks are deep, the whole area must be deep? If the tracks are shallow or almost non-existent, that means that the dirpack was shallow and in combination with the tires wouldn't produce tracks. If the dirt pack was thick enough, the tires will produce the tracks as you can see in the pics. You just can't assume that since the tracks go through an area that has a deep dirt pack, that the whole area in the pic has a deep dirt pack.
You combine all that is mentioned above with how fast (or slow) they were going, how they were driving, how much weight the rover was carrying (did they have rocks or not) and a whole different set of explanations are possible to one simple question: Why are there no tracks in some places and why are there deep tracks in others?
Next possibility I point out is it could've been the tires and the dirt pack. I should've pointed out that its not just the area the rover went through, but the area around it. How do you know that the dirt pack is deep in those areas just by looking at the picture and just assuming that since the tracks are deep, the whole area must be deep? If the tracks are shallow or almost non-existent, that means that the dirpack was shallow and in combination with the tires wouldn't produce tracks. If the dirt pack was thick enough, the tires will produce the tracks as you can see in the pics. You just can't assume that since the tracks go through an area that has a deep dirt pack, that the whole area in the pic has a deep dirt pack.
You combine all that is mentioned above with how fast (or slow) they were going, how they were driving, how much weight the rover was carrying (did they have rocks or not) and a whole different set of explanations are possible to one simple question: Why are there no tracks in some places and why are there deep tracks in others?
09-11-2007, 12:26 PM
#257
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Posts: 47,585
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
how did the reflector arrays get up there?
since the Russians were there after we were, our arrays were put in place before theirs. If they didn't see ours, or even our equipment up there, don't you think they would have said something..lol
since the Russians were there after we were, our arrays were put in place before theirs. If they didn't see ours, or even our equipment up there, don't you think they would have said something..lol
09-11-2007, 12:35 PM
#258
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
I cannot imagine you that this comment would come from an engineer
"I don't know just by looking unless i've been to that spot and you don't know just by looking unless you've been to that spot."
Books are the main conduit of learning and provide a written and visual guide to obtaining knowledge.
You are negating the very principles of learning. You do not have to travel to Maui to see that the white sands or to Italy to see the black sand beaches.
In that you cannot give a logical reason for the lack of tire tracks behind the wheel of a vehicle that traveled forward.
samurai I think it is better that you avoid this thread.
Let this be a lesson of how one can hold on so dearly to a principle that is not of fact but merely "they said they did it".
"I don't know just by looking unless i've been to that spot and you don't know just by looking unless you've been to that spot."
Books are the main conduit of learning and provide a written and visual guide to obtaining knowledge.
You are negating the very principles of learning. You do not have to travel to Maui to see that the white sands or to Italy to see the black sand beaches.
In that you cannot give a logical reason for the lack of tire tracks behind the wheel of a vehicle that traveled forward.
samurai I think it is better that you avoid this thread.
Let this be a lesson of how one can hold on so dearly to a principle that is not of fact but merely "they said they did it".
Lets use what I'm doing as an example. A simple structural analysis on an L-bracket. Loads applied at one end trying to bend the bracket while it is bolted to something at the other end with 4 bolts. Sounds simple right? You include stress concentration factors at the angle to account for the increased stresses at the angle (or radius) and shear tear out factors for the holes holding the bracket in place (since the bracket reacts the bolts), include a G-load (which is another predict since you don't know what components are going on) on the bracket to account for whatever is trying to put the load on. Then you predict where you think it is going to break based on knowledge of load paths and calculate stresses and compare them to material allowables. Done? nope. Now you have to take fatigue into account. Now you have a whole new set of test data and curves you have to read info off of according to the # of cycles you predict. Too many and you make the bracket unnecessarily beefy. Too little and it'll break. Where do you draw the line? You can easily add in stronger material or make the bracket beefier or thinner, but sometimes info isn't there or the material doesn't exist. What if the bracket were more complex? What if the loads aren't accurate? Then we'd have to try to modify our analysis to match the data that we have. If we don't have a certain geometry or if it is something overly complex, we make a computer model or test it. The best way is to test it, but since tests take time and money to set up, it is best to make a computer model of the part and do stress analysis that way. Since NASA/USAF didn't have computer models back then like we do, they always predicted conservatively and that lead to designs weighing a ton when they didn't need to be. Thats where we earn our money, but either way we are always predicting until we test and correlate our data.
However, there is no way to test for conditions on the moon unless you've been there. We have to go based on what we know and engineers sure as hell didn't know much back then. You are drawing simple conclusions based on visual discrepancies on a couple of pictures (no tracks here, etc) when I have a whole lot of angles to draw on trying to explain them. It sounds like I'm reaching, but it is in fact like that when you go through and do the design and analysis. In engineering, you just can't assume something especially if the environment is unknown. The only times you assume is for simplicity of calculations and even then, it is an estimation and a prediction based on whatever we know.
Point is, you are making it overly simple when it is not and the logical explanations are given.
09-11-2007, 12:39 PM
#260
You don't understand what an engineer does. We make PREDICTIONS based on our best guesses. Thats what the science is. Then the actual engineering part is where we test to prove or disprove our theories. Since you are a tuner, you should be strong in the test part because you see cars, tune them and test them almost everyday. Its easy to draw conclusions on that because we usually have visual knowledge and enourmous amts of test data to back up our claims.
Lets use what I'm doing as an example. A simple structural analysis on an L-bracket. Loads applied at one end trying to bend the bracket while it is bolted to something at the other end with 4 bolts. Sounds simple right? You include stress concentration factors at the angle to account for the increased stresses at the angle (or radius) and shear tear out factors for the holes holding the bracket in place (since the bracket reacts the bolts), include a G-load (which is another predict since you don't know what components are going on) on the bracket to account for whatever is trying to put the load on. Then you predict where you think it is going to break based on knowledge of load paths and calculate stresses and compare them to material allowables. Done? nope. Now you have to take fatigue into account. Now you have a whole new set of test data and curves you have to read info off of according to the # of cycles you predict. Too many and you make the bracket unnecessarily beefy. Too little and it'll break. Where do you draw the line? You can easily add in stronger material or make the bracket beefier or thinner, but sometimes info isn't there or the material doesn't exist. What if the bracket were more complex? What if the loads aren't accurate? Then we'd have to try to modify our analysis to match the data that we have. If we don't have a certain geometry or if it is something overly complex, we make a computer model or test it. The best way is to test it, but since tests take time and money to set up, it is best to make a computer model of the part and do stress analysis that way. Since NASA/USAF didn't have computer models back then like we do, they always predicted conservatively and that lead to designs weighing a ton when they didn't need to be. Thats where we earn our money, but either way we are always predicting until we test and correlate our data.
However, there is no way to test for conditions on the moon unless you've been there. We have to go based on what we know and engineers sure as hell didn't know much back then. You are drawing simple conclusions based on visual discrepancies on a couple of pictures (no tracks here, etc) when I have a whole lot of angles to draw on trying to explain them. It sounds like I'm reaching, but it is in fact like that when you go through and do the design and analysis. In engineering, you just can't assume something especially if the environment is unknown. The only times you assume is for simplicity of calculations and even then, it is an estimation and a prediction based on whatever we know.
Point is, you are making it overly simple when it is not and the logical explanations are given.
Lets use what I'm doing as an example. A simple structural analysis on an L-bracket. Loads applied at one end trying to bend the bracket while it is bolted to something at the other end with 4 bolts. Sounds simple right? You include stress concentration factors at the angle to account for the increased stresses at the angle (or radius) and shear tear out factors for the holes holding the bracket in place (since the bracket reacts the bolts), include a G-load (which is another predict since you don't know what components are going on) on the bracket to account for whatever is trying to put the load on. Then you predict where you think it is going to break based on knowledge of load paths and calculate stresses and compare them to material allowables. Done? nope. Now you have to take fatigue into account. Now you have a whole new set of test data and curves you have to read info off of according to the # of cycles you predict. Too many and you make the bracket unnecessarily beefy. Too little and it'll break. Where do you draw the line? You can easily add in stronger material or make the bracket beefier or thinner, but sometimes info isn't there or the material doesn't exist. What if the bracket were more complex? What if the loads aren't accurate? Then we'd have to try to modify our analysis to match the data that we have. If we don't have a certain geometry or if it is something overly complex, we make a computer model or test it. The best way is to test it, but since tests take time and money to set up, it is best to make a computer model of the part and do stress analysis that way. Since NASA/USAF didn't have computer models back then like we do, they always predicted conservatively and that lead to designs weighing a ton when they didn't need to be. Thats where we earn our money, but either way we are always predicting until we test and correlate our data.
However, there is no way to test for conditions on the moon unless you've been there. We have to go based on what we know and engineers sure as hell didn't know much back then. You are drawing simple conclusions based on visual discrepancies on a couple of pictures (no tracks here, etc) when I have a whole lot of angles to draw on trying to explain them. It sounds like I'm reaching, but it is in fact like that when you go through and do the design and analysis. In engineering, you just can't assume something especially if the environment is unknown. The only times you assume is for simplicity of calculations and even then, it is an estimation and a prediction based on whatever we know.
Point is, you are making it overly simple when it is not and the logical explanations are given.
09-11-2007, 12:40 PM
#261
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
Exactly, it is a whole variety of things that can happen and since we are in an environment that is unfamiliar to us, thats what leads me to my conclusion. That there are many different explanations and some of them are simple and some of them aren't. But the whole thing about the lunar landing being faked because of a couple discrepancies with pictures that can be a caused by anything I explained (and perhaps more) leads me to believe that they weren't.
Last edited by samurai; 09-11-2007 at 01:04 PM.
09-11-2007, 12:55 PM
#262
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
Right, but the lunar dirt has different properties or so we learned later. Again it was the best predict from the engineers that eventually turned out different.
Also, we did test stuff, but on earth. We did test flights in space with Apollo 7,8,9,10 but they still didn't know much about the lunar environment. Until they got onto the moon and used things, they were still predicting that things would behave similarly to a desert-like environment because that was the closest thing to the moon that they had to test with.
EDIT - The Russians had one according to the book i'm reading. They claim that they didn't want to, but were secretly doing a crash design to put their men on the moon first. When Apollo landed, they cancelled the project in July of 1969.
Also, we did test stuff, but on earth. We did test flights in space with Apollo 7,8,9,10 but they still didn't know much about the lunar environment. Until they got onto the moon and used things, they were still predicting that things would behave similarly to a desert-like environment because that was the closest thing to the moon that they had to test with.
EDIT - The Russians had one according to the book i'm reading. They claim that they didn't want to, but were secretly doing a crash design to put their men on the moon first. When Apollo landed, they cancelled the project in July of 1969.
Last edited by samurai; 09-11-2007 at 01:02 PM.
09-11-2007, 12:57 PM
#263
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Hey, I have a question. If the US really didn't send anyone to the moon, and you guys found the only real evidence of the fact that it was a hoax (the 'missing' tracks), and the goverment is still maintaining that they DID send men to the moon (and keeping all the people involved quiet to this day), then WHY HAVEN'T THE MEN IN BLACK SUITS TAKEN YOU ALL AWAY YET! You're all in trouble! They know you know the truth, and they're going to make sure you stop talking about it! OH NO!!! RUN, RUN, GET A TIN FOIL HAT AND HIDE IN YOUR PARENT'S BASEMENT!!!
09-11-2007, 01:02 PM
#264
Hey, I have a question. If the US really didn't send anyone to the moon, and you guys found the only real evidence of the fact that it was a hoax (the 'missing' tracks), and the goverment is still maintaining that they DID send men to the moon (and keeping all the people involved quiet to this day), then WHY HAVEN'T THE MEN IN BLACK SUITS TAKEN YOU ALL AWAY YET! You're all in trouble! They know you know the truth, and they're going to make sure you stop talking about it! OH NO!!! RUN, RUN, GET A TIN FOIL HAT AND HIDE IN YOUR PARENT'S BASEMENT!!!
second we are in so cal we dont have basements.
Third do they really do that?
now if you said lair in the dungueon then yeah we are down there with the foil hats you need the secret knock to get in
09-11-2007, 01:03 PM
#265
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Posts: 47,585
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
NEWS UPDATE
Nasa is one of our customers. One of our agents talked to them on an issue they were having so I had him ask if we went to the moon
then answer is yes.
we can close this thread now.
oh yeah, he called all the non-believers "part of a cult"
lol
Nasa is one of our customers. One of our agents talked to them on an issue they were having so I had him ask if we went to the moon
then answer is yes.
we can close this thread now.
oh yeah, he called all the non-believers "part of a cult"
lol
09-11-2007, 01:10 PM
#267
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
On that note:
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Kaysing.htm
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Percy.htm
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Sibrel.htm
Here's one of Kaysing's beliefs...
"The US & British government bribed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour in order to drag American into WW2."
ORLY?
Last edited by samurai; 09-11-2007 at 01:12 PM.
09-11-2007, 01:10 PM
#268
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Posts: 47,585
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
if you get someone from NASA say we didn't go, Ill be convinced.
until then, I have expert testimony that we did go.
/close thread
