General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[Stevo985]

6 minutes ago, Seal said:

Out of interest have any of you conducted / replicated the lunar ranging experiment?

You’d need literally millions and millions of dollars of equipment

[Seal]

9 minutes ago, limpid said:

Thanks, but this is not the "same experiment". It's a similar experiment.

That non-wiki links are to an insecure sites. All of the links appear to be to articles. Do you have a link to an (extract of) a primary source? The kind of thing that would be needed to do my own research?

I'd guess that there hasn't been much follow up as they put retroreflectors on the moon's surface to do a better experiment.

I have this: https://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/1941267a0

It is a bit lighter than what I expect you were hoping for. I appreciate that is one reason why there seems to be little on it, but also there could be others.

I appreciate it is not the same experiment but it is the similar results that are of interest to me. I am interested in your thoughts from doing research.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Seal

[Stevo985]

It’s a bit like saying why aren’t they still using film cameras to capture images?

Because they found a better way to do it

Edited September 19, 2023 by Stevo985

[limpid]

Just now, Seal said:

I have this: https://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/1941267a0

It is a bit lighter than what I expect you were hoping for. I appreciate that is one reason why there seems to be little on it, but also there could be others.

I appreciate it is not the same experiment but it is the similar results that are interest to me. 

If you are this sloppy with your terminology, how do you know you are searching for things which actually answer your questions?

From this paper (cited 319 times in other peer reviewed papers) in 1973:

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.182.4109.229

Quote

With this ephemeris, the range to the three Apollo retroreflectors can be fit to an accuracy of 5 m by adjusting the differences in moments of inertia of the moon about its principal axes, the selenocentric coordinates of the reflectors, and the McDonald longitude

The accuracy already achieved routinely in lunar laser ranging represents a hundredfold improvement over any previously available knowledge of the distance to points on the lunar surface

That took me minutes to do my own research.

[Seal]

It 'could be' a bit like that. But also it 'could' be something else. This is similar to where I have an issue between your use of explanation + debunk. To me debunk means to objectively obliterate something. An explanation could work. But also could be superseded by a different explanation. It doesn't mean there is not value in the explanation. It is missing an important level of critical thinking when you just assume that there is an explanation. Therefore this must be the end of that. 

I think it is ok to be sceptical of an experiment that cannot be replicated without millions of monies. 

Nonetheless I am a little tired and will be going to sleep now. I hope you all have pleasant dreams and you can look forward to a day of me being in meetings and travelling tomorrow, 

I do appreciate, but dislike, that such discussions can often raise hackles and stuff. I'm sorry if I have angered anyone, but I appreciate all your efforts and points. They have been thought provoking and intelligent.

Good night x  

[Stevo985]

2 minutes ago, Seal said:

It 'could be' a bit like that. But also it 'could' be something else. This is similar to where I have an issue between your use of explanation + debunk. To me debunk means to objectively obliterate something.

But when the statement is that the footprints on the moon don’t match the boots the astronauts wore, and the “explanation” is that they wore overshoes which DO match the footprints, then I don’t see how that doesn’t obliterate the original statement?

What is the alternative explanation? 

[Mr_Dogg]

I don't understand complicated things so therefore I don't believe in them. 

[Stevo985]

Just now, Mr_Dogg said:

I don't understand complicated things so therefore I don't believe in them. 

This is the difference really. 
 

Some people find something unbelievable and look up how it’s done. 
Some people find something unbelievable and choose not to believe it

[Seal]

1 minute ago, limpid said:

If you are this sloppy with your terminology, how do you know you are searching for things which actually answer your questions?

From this paper (cited 319 times in other peer reviewed papers) in 1973:

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.182.4109.229

That took me minutes to do my own research.

I wasn't asking a question when you referenced my terminology. I was merely making a back of the fag packet calculation and used back of a fag packet terminology. On a forum, not on a thesis. But I will endeavour to use words more proper in the future.

Perhaps any research that takes a few minutes isn't complete? Not saying it isn't. That article is behind a paywall to me other than the abstract.

It reads like the increased accuracy is achieved by direct numerical integration of the equations of the motion for the moon and planets. And is based on a theory of how the moon rotates and the acting on it and equations. As well as technological advances of the retroreflectors. 

How do you know whether the increased accuracy is from the reflectors, or from the theories and equations. Might it be the input of the gate, rather than the reflector that increases the accuracy? Not stating that they  are, just that the abstract is not clear, it references previously unknown phenomena more than it references the reflectors.

If you just researched for a few minutes, are you sure you did enough research (although perhaps if you haven't done it before then the not sloppy terminology would be search), might not be sufficient to fully understand something)?

Are you able to send across the full experiment and its results? I would be interested to read, but not interested enough to pay. 

[Seal]

12 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

But when the statement is that the footprints on the moon don’t match the boots the astronauts wore, and the “explanation” is that they wore overshoes which DO match the footprints, then I don’t see how that doesn’t obliterate the original statement?

What is the alternative explanation? 

Your explanation was that they used overshoes that do match the footprint.

Another could be that nasa got called out for something, and thought of a reason to justify it, so came up with the explanation.

For the overshoes to debunk  the inconsistency in footprints, then it would need to objectively and demonstrably have been true. I havent seen that happen. Bear in mind nasa are quite good at coming up with retrospective statements to justify previous inconsistencies. It is a bit of an organisational trait.

[Seal]

12 minutes ago, Mr_Dogg said:

I don't understand complicated things so therefore I don't believe in them. 

My actual only real belief is that belief is the death of intelligence. It is why I use the term suspicion so much. I learned from a great man that words are important. 

[mjmooney]

1 minute ago, Seal said:

I learned from a great man that words are important

Should we have a guess? 

[Xann]

Just now, mjmooney said:

Should we have a guess? 

Likely not a physics teacher.

[Stevo985]

Just now, Seal said:

Your explanation was that they used overshoes that do match the footprint.

Another could be that nasa got called out for something, and thought of a reason to justify it, so came up with the explanation.

For the overshoes to debunk  the inconsistency in footprints, then it would need to objectively and demonstrably have been true. I havent seen that happen. Bear in mind nasa are quite good at coming up with retrospective statements to justify previous inconsistencies. It is a bit of an organisational trait.

But you could say this about absolutely anything in the world ever. 
By this logic you don’t believe anything that has ever happened that you haven’t personally witnessed. 
 

How do you know the Berlin Wall fell? How do you know Hitler killed himself? How do you know the wright brothers invented the aeroplane?

You can’t put out a statement suggesting something is fake because of reason X, and when someone points out reason X is nonsense, just say “yeah we’ll maybe there’s another explanation?!”

 

On a separate note, do you think NASA would be clever enough to fake a moon landing and cover it up for decades, but be stupid enough make footprints with the wrong shoe?

Or is it more likely that the completely obvious, simple and logical explanation that they wore overshoes is the reality?

 

Id suggest you research Occam’s Razor

[Mandy Lifeboats]

2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

 

Id suggest you research Occam’s Razor

If you hear hooves it's probably a horse. There's a small chance it's a zebra. It's not a headless horseman. 

[bielesibub]

7 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Should we have a guess? 

Try googling "who created the pseudoscientific method?"

[ml1dch]

2 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

If you hear hooves it's probably a horse. There's a small chance it's a zebra. It's not a headless horseman. 

Technically, the hooves would still be a horse in that situation. 

[Stevo985]

Incidentally here is the picture that prompted this myth. It is indeed a picture of Neil Armstrong’s space suit. And it does have smooth soles

Here is some close up photos of the kind of overshoes  they wore on the moon. One of the photos is a close up of the sole. 

 

And here is a picture of Neil Armstrong on the freakin’ moon. You can see his boots clearly don’t look like the boots on the space suit above. Instead they look exactly like the overshoes which have the right tread

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Stevo985

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Seal said:

I don't think we will reach an agreement on this.

We’re talking on a completely different basis. I’m not trying to agree or disagree. I’m posting as someone who knows something about some aspects of some of the technology involved. Specifically RF engineering and to a lesser extent lasers, oh and electronics and antenna steering. I know Jack about rockets, or space craft or lots of other stuff. Without meaning to be at all rude, it’s of no interest to me whether we agree or not, or whether people think men were on the moon or not. I absolutely don’t care.

I’m only, because I’ve spent decades working in the area of aviation electronics and RF and systems engineering, trying to provide some information as to whether stuff is possible or how it is possible or how it is done. You can choose to reject/ accept/ ask more questions about what I’ve written or what you think I might be able to explain in more detail, or more simply…or to ignore completely. All is fine there. I’m not fussed either way.

To your credit you’ve said “I don’t believe or I don’t understand various things” That’s kind of why I’ve typed a load of stuff (and because I’m a nerd for “my” areas of knowledge and like thinking about and trying to explain complex things in a way that hopefully isn’t completely baffling to non nerds).

At some point all of us are faced with stuff that’s beyond our capability or knowledge. I was sat in the dentists chair today while the dentist explained dentist things. I trusted him and his training and knowledge, but it was all Greek to me. We choose to either believe or not believe stuff.

keep asking questions, if you’re interested, Be open to listening, be logically critical, but don’t be dogmatic. That’s kind of my approach, anyway. It’s worked for me in helping me learn and understand new stuff.

[fightoffyour]

45 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Incidentally here is the picture that prompted this myth. It is indeed a picture of Neil Armstrong’s space suit. And it does have smooth soles

Here is some close up photos of the kind of overshoes  they wore on the moon. One of the photos is a close up of the sole. 

 

And here is a picture of Neil Armstrong on the freakin’ moon. You can see his boots clearly don’t look like the boots on the space suit above. Instead they look exactly like the overshoes which have the right tread

 

That's certainly one explanation for it.