Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?

  • 83 Replies
  • 23419 Views
*

Rushy

  • 8971
  • +0/-0
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #60 on: December 19, 2011, 09:56:55 PM »
Okay, okay, I'll stop posting these but come on, I couldn't let this one go unposted:

Quote
User: Is an artificial satellite possible?

Cleverbot: No.

User: Why not?

Cleverbot: I don't know the definition.

User: You sound a lot like someone from the Flat Earth Society.

Cleverbot: Like who?

User: Tom Bishop.

Cleverbot: ):.

I MADE IT SAD.

?

randall_55

  • 27
  • +0/-0
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #61 on: December 19, 2011, 10:24:12 PM »
Google "Mythbusters mistakes". There are over 1,000,000 results. Hardly a reliable source ...

Google "Thork mistakes". There are over 750,000 results. Hardly a reliable source ...
(Really, go do it. Over 750,000. No exaggeration.)

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • +0/-0
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #62 on: December 19, 2011, 10:26:30 PM »
Tom: You're right that I missed the HCC, I had at first assumed that section was just an overview of the hardware itself. Okay, so there are 3 software components, two of which are confirmed to not be from NASA. Two down, one to go... aren't you starting to feel like you're grasping at straws?


The paper ... does not go into who built what...

Yes it does.

or who programed the HCC software.

Not to worry. I can help you out here, since I prefer real research to making shit up. It turns out the HCC software is named "housctl" and was written by Eric Michelson from the University of California, San Diego:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~emichels/

This document includes the design and implementation of housctl:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~emichels/ApolloHousctl.pdf

He also has a PDF about laser programming in general.

Please look over these documents and point out for me at which point in the design process Eric was led astray by NASA.


The press release I linked says that JPL provided the hardware software.

No it didn't. I chuckled at the term "hardware software" though, thanks for that.


I wouldn't be surprised if JPL was involved in the construction. They provided the hardware control software after all. And as such they would need to know something on how it's constructed, needing to be extremely close to the builders if not building it themselves.

Well, now that we know who really provided the software, you sure shot yourself in the foot with this statement. I can't wait to see what you resort to next.


It also says right there at the end --

    "Jim Williams and Dale Boggs of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory performed frequent verification of our prediction quality."

They were there, making sure the predictions met up with "observations".

Interesting. So, where's the ol' Jim-and-Dale verification in this video? " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


That's probably what all of these students who intern on NASA projects do - some trivial task of no great importance, so they could add the word "NASA" into their resume and NASA can advertise that they're "reaching out" to universities in order to continue the charade of being a scientific organization. Students have the honor of writing concept papers for how a real space ship/space station/space probe/laser ranging device might work, making concept art, and pressing buttons from a user interface, but likely nothing beyond that. It's basically free labor for NASA to perpetuate their scam.

Okay Tom... take a deep breath...
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

ClockTower

  • 6462
  • +0/-0
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #63 on: December 19, 2011, 10:32:08 PM »
Google "Mythbusters mistakes". There are over 1,000,000 results. Hardly a reliable source ...

Google "Thork mistakes". There are over 750,000 results. Hardly a reliable source ...
(Really, go do it. Over 750,000. No exaggeration.)
+1
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6462
  • +0/-0
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #64 on: December 19, 2011, 10:34:42 PM »
That's probably what all of these students who intern on NASA projects do - some trivial task of no great importance, so they could add the word "NASA" into their resume and NASA can advertise that they're "reaching out" to universities in order to continue the charade of being a scientific organization. Students have the honor of writing concept papers for how a real space ship/space station/space probe/laser ranging device might work, making concept art, and pressing buttons from a user interface for the press, but likely nothing beyond that. It's basically free labor for NASA to perpetuate their scam.
Speaking of reaching out, tell how Columbia University is coming along...
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Mizuki

  • 356
  • +0/-0
  • Earth is NOT a Globe
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #65 on: December 20, 2011, 12:57:50 PM »
I've just done a search on this site for 'Gus Grissom' and i can't believe i didn't get a single hit. Surely he's been discussed on this site before  ???

Mizuki x
"Earth is a maximal sphere in a cyclical space and its surface therefore a total plane, the equator plane of the Cosmos. The (total) plane, as well as the straight line and space as a whole, is flat, without curvature yet closed, running back on itself."

*

ClockTower

  • 6462
  • +0/-0
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #66 on: December 20, 2011, 01:44:58 PM »
I've just done a search on this site for 'Gus Grissom' and i can't believe i didn't get a single hit. Surely he's been discussed on this site before  ???

Mizuki x
Sorry, but I think you were a victim of the fickleness of the 'Search' function.

See, for example: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13096.msg208062;topicseen#msg208062.

I've been here long enough to know that Search don't always work correctly here.

Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Mizuki

  • 356
  • +0/-0
  • Earth is NOT a Globe
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #67 on: December 20, 2011, 01:47:59 PM »
Thank you ClockTower!

Mizuki x
"Earth is a maximal sphere in a cyclical space and its surface therefore a total plane, the equator plane of the Cosmos. The (total) plane, as well as the straight line and space as a whole, is flat, without curvature yet closed, running back on itself."

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • +0/-0
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #68 on: December 20, 2011, 03:03:56 PM »
I've just done a search on this site for 'Gus Grissom' and i can't believe i didn't get a single hit. Surely he's been discussed on this site before  ???

Mizuki x
Sorry, but I think you were a victim of the fickleness of the 'Search' function.

See, for example: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13096.msg208062;topicseen#msg208062.

I've been here long enough to know that Search don't always work correctly here.

I love the sheer wrongness of that Amroth fellow's big list. Pretty much at a glance you can see he either doesn't understand things, doesn't have the knowledge to make an informed judgement, or is just plain incorrect. Let's pick some out, shall we?

1)  Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.
Rubbish. A star needs an exposure of at least a second or so to be even visible - and that's the brightest ones. Typical lunar photo exposures are more likely to be in the range of 100th-500th of a second. After all, it's bright direct sunlight.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?
Bullshit. Even if a pure oxygen atmosphere had been used in the Apollo craft that were sent to the Moon (which it wasn't), there's no reason this would melt a camera or produce poison gas.

4)  Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander?
You can't produce a flame in a vacuum. A flame is a stream of very hot gas. The very hot gas comes out of a rocket engine. Where the gas is coming out ceases to be a vacuum as long as the gas is there. You can see the very hot gas. What's next?

5)  Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand.  The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.
Nonsense. It's perfectly possible to make a print in perfectly dry fine powder. You can try this at home with any fine enough powder such as talc or cornstarch.

17)  The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper.  There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.
Ha ha ha. I'll leave it to you to work out why this is an idiotic statement. Which it is. I could go on with many more of these, but I'll finish with my favourite...

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory.
Suggested reading: history of early home computers such as the Sinclair ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, BBC and others. All of which were capable of simulating far more than a moon landing with memory a thousand times less than that "requirement" Amroth mentions.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • +0/-0
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #69 on: December 20, 2011, 03:24:55 PM »
and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed.

I nearly broke down and cried when I got here.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Lorddave

  • 18653
  • +1/-12
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #70 on: December 21, 2011, 03:26:39 AM »
Why would the computer on apollo need to simulate a landing?
I thought all it did was provide some basic math functions and coordinate between operator action and vehicle action.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • +0/-0
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #71 on: December 21, 2011, 04:05:52 AM »
Why would the computer on apollo need to simulate a landing?
I thought all it did was provide some basic math functions and coordinate between operator action and vehicle action.

Yes, pretty much right.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #72 on: December 21, 2011, 10:08:53 AM »
Quote from: zarg
Not to worry. I can help you out here, since I prefer real research to making shit up. It turns out the HCC software is named "housctl" and was written by Eric Michelson from the University of California, San Diego:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~emichels/

Fine, I concede that there is some conflicting information here. The press release claims that the software comes from JPL and other pages seem to imply that it was written in-house.

Does it really matter? Both JPL and APOLLO are funded by NASA. Whether written by JPL or APOLLO in-house it's payrolled by NASA all the same.

It's a stretch to say that NASA would fund a project without having the ability to control it. Does your employer send you a paycheck and say "go do whatever you want, we don't care"? No. They give you explicit instructions and breathe down your neck if you are not meeting demands and expectations. This is how the world works.

NASA is funding it. NASA has control. NASA employees are directing the research. It's a NASA project, clear and simple.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 01:12:22 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • +0/-0
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #73 on: December 21, 2011, 11:07:24 AM »
I'm Tom Bishop. I'd like you to know that even though only four guys at NASA are in on the conspiracy, several hundred are also in on it. Thanks for listening.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

iwanttobelieve

  • 5442
  • +0/-0
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #74 on: December 21, 2011, 11:30:59 AM »
There is nothing wrong with NASA and its employees.
So is the FAQ wrong again, or is there a massive conspiracy?

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • +0/-0
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #75 on: December 21, 2011, 02:03:04 PM »
Quote from: zarg
Not to worry. I can help you out here, since I prefer real research to making shit up. It turns out the HCC software is named "housctl" and was written by Eric Michelson from the University of California, San Diego:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~emichels/

Fine, I concede that there is some conflicting information here. The press release claims that the software comes from JPL and other pages seem to imply that it was written in-house.

A personal website of the man who wrote the software with a comprehensive document explaining in detail how he implemented every single aspect of it, versus an outdated news article that you wilfully misinterpreted, is hardly conflicting information. There is no mystery here. NASA was not involved.

Now I'm going to ask you once more: Look through the documents and tell me which phase of development was sabotaged by NASA. Tell me where Eric made a mistake and how that mistake can be attributed to NASA's involvement.


Does it really matter?

What kind of question is that? You have all the material here. If you can't find a single phase and explain how NASA could have been in control of it, you have no evidence. No evidence equals making shit up. Stop it.


It's a stretch to say that NASA would fund a project without having the ability to control it. Does your employer send you a paycheck and say "go do whatever you want, we don't care"? No. They give you explicit instructions and breathe down your neck if you are not meeting demands and expectations. This is how the world works.

For God's sake Tom, NASA was not the employer. NASA wasn't the only one who supported the project. Obviously all the organizations who donated can't simultaneously be in charge.

But this is all besides the point anyway, Tom. Despite how strongly you believe that giving money to a project means one should be in charge of it, all the evidence points to the fact that they weren't.

As an extreme example: Dave shoots Harry in the heart. Harry survives. You say, "Does it really matter? Dave murdered Harry. When you shoot someone in the heart, they die. This is how the world works." Yet Harry is sitting next to you, quite alive. Your expectations are irrelevant if available facts contradict them.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #76 on: December 22, 2011, 09:18:31 AM »
You're arguing that a NASA-funded project which involved NASA employees could not have been guided or corrupted by NASA.

Sorry, but it's an extremely bad argument on face value.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 43273
  • +11/-12
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #77 on: December 22, 2011, 10:34:28 AM »
You're arguing that a NASA-funded project which involved NASA employees could not have been guided or corrupted by NASA.

Sorry, but it's an extremely bad argument on face value.

Was NASA the sole source of funding for the project?  Was NASA the sole source of employees for the project?  Was NASA the sole source of guidance for the project?  Do you have anything other than speculation to add to the discussion?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • +0/-0
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #78 on: December 22, 2011, 11:49:18 AM »
You're arguing that a NASA-funded project which involved NASA employees could not have been guided or corrupted by NASA.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that it was not. You are arguing that it was, simply because you believe it could have been. That doesn't work -- read my last paragraph again.

Your "debate" consists of making up stories about what might have been, like this:

NASA is the customer and can easily say "we want the software to be developed by our external team" or "we want NASA employee John Smith to head this program".

This kind of speculation might be appropriate in regards to future projects, but not this. This already happened 6 years ago. We know who developed the software, and we know the project leader is Tom Murphy, also from UCSD like Eric.

Your speculations are irrelevant. They aren't reality.

Stop making shit up.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

kbthiede

  • 63
  • +0/-0
  • RE, because I actually learned high school science
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #79 on: December 22, 2011, 05:45:55 PM »
This thread is hilarious.

Folks, what you see on "CSI" is not how real investigation works.

Even so, it looks like no one bothered to glance down at Schmitt's shadow. Yawn. Next.


Holy shit you can clearly see the life support pack in his shadow.

Seriously FES, try not to rely so hard on "lol its a conspiracy wake up sheeple" especially since all your "evidence" is some seriously weak shit.
Science - logic + (lots and lots of) magic = FLAT EARTH THEORY

*

Supertails

  • 4387
  • +0/-0
  • what do i put here
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #80 on: December 30, 2011, 04:55:16 AM »
Sometimes I really love these spambots, when they just border on coherence. Can we keep these ones? Please?
Recently listened to:


?

Mizuki

  • 356
  • +0/-0
  • Earth is NOT a Globe
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #81 on: December 30, 2011, 05:06:15 AM »
As the moon hoax exposed person who is not a professional, I must say I am so shocked by the simple mistakes. I look forward to moar Mizuki positions.

Spambots like me!!

I am very touched!  :)

Mizuki x
"Earth is a maximal sphere in a cyclical space and its surface therefore a total plane, the equator plane of the Cosmos. The (total) plane, as well as the straight line and space as a whole, is flat, without curvature yet closed, running back on itself."

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • +0/-0
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #82 on: December 30, 2011, 02:26:26 PM »
Oh. That's a shame. I really wasn't expecting such weak counter arguments from the forum warrior NASA apologists. Especially you, Clocktower. Never mind.

But then there really is no need to say anything. That picture speaks for itself.

Mizuki x

Well that zipper must have been a very tight one, if it didn't kill the monkey inside it's suit.

Also magical rocks are fully consistant with RET Lunacy.

In fact, magical rocks appearing and dissapearing on the so called Moon, actually are the best evidence RET have of the earth being round.

PS: That was a weird looking desert they faked that in. Sadly for RET Apologists, there are countless deserts here on Earth, thus infinite ways to fake such a stupid moon walk, anywhere on this earth.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they edited out all the camels, oasis trees and coconuts from those images.

NASA people are like Hollywood, only dedicated to their Hoaxes.
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • +0/-0
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?
« Reply #83 on: December 30, 2011, 06:16:46 PM »
the so called Moon

Please enlighten us as to the "moon"'s True Name.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.