| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| We Never Went to the Moon; It looks like we got fooled | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 12:52 PM (14,281 Views) | |
| David C | Sep 1 2008, 07:34 AM Post #451 |
|
(from post#450)
You haven't given any explanation that would satisfiy anyone with any brains. I googled longitudinal and transverse waves. There's nothing about them that's difficult to understand. You said that the corner of the jacket moves up because it's pulled. How are waves involved here? You haven't explained that. Come back and explain how waves are involved when something is pulled. ---------------------- (from post#450)
As I said in my last post-- Explain it for the sake of the viewers who are following this discussion. If you take a position but refuse to explain it and then abandon the thread in a huff, it looks suspiciously like you know you are cornered and are trying to evade the whole situation. ---------------------- (from post#449)
I disagree with you on that. Once people see the evidence of the Apollo hoax, they believe it was a hoax if they're not suffering from cognitive dissonance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Won't that make them more inclined to be objective about the idea that 9/11 was an inside job? Once their naive faith that the US government would never deceive people on a large scale has been shattered, won't they start looking at the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. That's the main reason I started this moon thread (read post #2 on page one) ; I want to wake people up so they will realize that 9/11 was an inside job. (from post#449)
A moon thread in the old "Loose Change forum" got deleted when all the pro-Apollo people were maintaining very silly positions with authoritative patronizing attitudes and looking like horses' a---s. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18777 I hope this isn't what I suspect it is. When the pro-Apollo people lose a debate, the whole debate disappears so that very few people see it. |
 |
 
|
| Tim Riches | Sep 1 2008, 08:18 AM Post #452 |
By His Noodly Appendage, Ramen.
|
"If you can't convince, confuse!" -Unknown |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Sep 2 2008, 04:10 AM Post #453 |
|
Mythbusters looked at the Apollo hoax recently, it's available on Youtube. A very good experiment using a replica flag in a vacuum chamber supported what I've been saying all along about the Apollo 15 flag clip. The flag motion is clearly damped in an atmosphere (unlike the Apollo 15 clip). With the vacuum chamber evacuated, the flag swings much more freely (just like the Apollo 15 clip). Set aside your cognitive dissonance and re-examine the evidence objectively. Percy's non-parallel shadows claim was soundly put to bed as well. Do you still insist its part of your "mountain" of evidence? I think it's laughable that a professional photographer and film-maker would make such claims. He does have his DVDs to hawk I suppose. What's so sad is that some people just don't have the time, ability or desire to check his claims, yet assume them to be true, just like with Jack White. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Sep 2 2008, 04:19 AM Post #454 |
|
You're trying to rewrite history. The only person who lost that debate was you. Rooster tails for example. The only tactic you had left was derailing the thread by attacking other forums instead of looking at and discussing the evidence. How about addressing some of the points I've raised in recent posts? |
|
|
|
| David C | Sep 2 2008, 12:40 PM Post #455 |
|
You still haven't dealt with this.
You haven't explained anything. Your explanation is that the jacket was pulled. You say that spreadingtheMuse is right too as they are two ways to interpret the same phenomenon. Please explain how waves are involved if something moves because it is pulled. Also, another pro-Apollo person has just given a third explanation for the movement of the jacket corner. Look on page four of the comment section. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In zero-g, the corner will return to rest in the same position as related to its position in the rest of the jacket, regardless of orientation. This is not a diffucult concept. Ciao ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please tell us what you think of this explanation. Edited by David C, Sep 4 2008, 10:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Sep 4 2008, 02:20 PM Post #456 |
|
DavidC What part of "I will simply ignore any further postings on the matter" do you have difficulty with? Moving on to the evidence - yet again. Are you able to address the issues I raised concerning your "mountain" of evidence? Have you figured out why Percy was wrong about the Young jump salute yet? What about the issue of non-parallel shadows as addressed on Mythbusters? Did you bother researching the Jack White study mentioned in an earlier post? What about the missing flag shadow? What about the issue of Percy's credibility re Apollo by continuing to host Jack White's studies on his Aulis website? |
|
|
|
| David C | Sep 5 2008, 03:14 PM Post #457 |
|
The issue of the swinging jacket corner closes the whole case. The jacket corner was swinging in gravity in footage that we were told was taken halfway to the moon. If you give lame explanations with an authoritative patronizing attitude, your explanations are still lame. If you refuse to deal with it at all because you said something you couldn't follow through on, it makes you look even worse. You're just like the Black Knight in this clip from a Monty Python video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno The only thing that matters in this debate is what the viewers end up thinking. When most people watch one or two of those moon hoax videos, there's nothing you people from Clavius can do to convince them that the missions were real. The only thing you people from Clavius can do is try to keep them from seeing it. That won't work on this thread because all the evidence is in post #1. What happens in the rest of the thread doesn't have that much effect on thinking people who've seen he evidence. You have done a great service though. You have made it very clear that Clavius is a government damage-control site and that the regular pro-Apollo posters on the its forum know very well that the moon missions were faked. http://www.clavius.org/ I'll make clear who you are one more time. (reply #3) http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1107&page=1#33457 (post #3) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=9663&view=findpost&p=98465 (post #4916) http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=113834&view=findpost&p=2354776 You can try to draw attention away from this issue by concentrating on other issues but that won't make it go away. The hoax-believers have made a few mistakes but none of the mistakes they've made, when corrected, prove the missions were real. I'll have some time this weekend to look through "What Happened on the Moon" again. If the flap issue turns out to be a mistake by the hoax-believers, there's still the issue of whether or not it was filmed in a studio. It won't prove it was taken on the moon. None of the other stuff you brought up will prove the missions were real if shown to be mistaken as there is still the issue of whether it was in a studio. I've only seen two or three episodes of Mythbusters. The government must be pretty worried about all the hoax evidence on the internet or it wouldn't be spending so much money on damage-control. This is a pretty lame attempt to debunk the flag waving evidence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCPIchZDSr4 They seem to be trying to make people think the astronaut bumped the flag when he was obviously too far away to bump it. The material in the flag they used was probably just too light to move back and forth in air. Heavier material will move back and forth in air. If you don't address the issue you're ducking about the swinging jacket corner, I'm not going to continue talking to you. You're response to that totally blows you out of the water. Your credibility was shot long ago on this thread but that really topped it off. The only thing you can do now is try to fill up the thread to reduce the number of people who see it; that's why you're bringing up these other issues. You are discredited and the whole Clavius site has been discredited by your lame responses and some other stuff I've mentioned in this thread several times. This isn't worth the time anymore so I'm going to concentrate on other things. If you and some of your friends from Clavius try to bury the lame responses you gave about the jacket corner, I'll come back and keep posting it to thwart you. Edited by David C, Sep 19 2008, 02:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Sep 5 2008, 08:42 PM Post #458 |
|
The only person here who's credibility is shot is yours DavidC. Your ranting without proof of sites that don't agree with you being "government damage control" is comical. For the record, I am a viewer. I've seen a great majority of the hoax videos. They all fall apart under examination. Further, it appears to me that the jacket is in zero gravity. It also appears to me that these "viewers" that you constantly appeal to never seem to show up to back you up? Maybe because they don't see the same things your paranoid delusions are making you see?
One, the flag they used was the same material as the one on the Moon, nylon. Two, why would you think a heavier material would move back and forth more in air? Wouldn't a lighter material be blown around easier? Did you really think this one through? Three, they were comparing it to clips from the Moon landing where the pole was obviously twisted causing movement not when it may or may not have been bumped. The test they did in a vacuum most closely simulated the Moon footage. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Sep 6 2008, 11:28 AM Post #459 |
|
The case is indeed closed. You just lack the analytical skills to understand why you're wrong. Just like the rooster tails, and the toe print.
ROFLMAO! Ironic. You've summed yourself up superbly.
Some people are easily fooled by videos that support their worldview, and aren't pre-supposed to investigate whether the claims in them are correct. I'd like to think that most people are capable of rational thinking, and can look at both sides of the argument, and come to their own conclusions. I realised some time ago which category you fall into.
Thank you! My own personal publicist.
Drawing attention away from the issue? It's been explained to you ad infinitum. Here's a small selection of my posts on the matter. How can you possibly accuse me of trying to bury the topic when I've spent so much time showing you why you're wrong? http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=84248&t=51606 http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=87666&t=51606 http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=88079&t=51606 http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=89256&t=51606 http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=95057&t=51606 http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=104341&t=51606 http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=104446&t=51606 http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=108240&t=51606
If it was a genuine mistake, why doesn't Percy withdraw the claim on his Aulis website? Why did you include it in your "mountian" of evidence? Why do you say that HBs who are wrong make genuine mistakes, but ABs who are wrong are lying shills who don't believe what they're saying?
Wow! Now Mythbusters is a Government control operation. Regardless, it's the evidence itself you should address, not the source.
But a heavier material wouldn't be affected by the astronaut moving past at the distance away you claim.
I'm not ducking anything, it's been explained to you very thoroughly. See the links above for a small selection. I brought up the other issues because the Collins jacket issue has been throughly exhausted. You only have your opinion, I've shown how the evidence supports my position. If you think you have something to offer to push that particular debate forward, feel free. I'm bringing up other issues that you claim form part of your "mountain" of evidence. Sounds as if you realise it's wafer thin and don't want it dismantling in public.
Do whatever you like DavidC, you're opinions of me and other sites are utterly irrelevant to the truth about Apollo.
Thwarted by DavidC! Isn't that like being savaged by a dead sheep? |
|
|
|
| David C | Sep 6 2008, 01:12 PM Post #460 |
|
Well, it looks like you're trying to bury your lame responses to the swinging jacket corner issue so I guess I have to keep posting to make sure everybody sees them.
If this were a debating hall, this is the point where you would be declared the loser. Once you take a stand, you have to take it all the way, or admit you were mistaken. This is your explanation for the swinging jacket corner.
This is spreadingtheMuse's explanation for the swinging jacket corner.
If spreadingtheMuse is right and you are right, you have to explain how waves are involved in your explanation. Your explanation is that the cormer goes back down because it was pulled. I can't see how waves are involved. Please explain. (This is the question you've been ducking. Please don't say you've already answered it.) Also, another pro-Apollo poster in the YouTube comment section has given a third explanation for the swinging jacket corner.
Look at page 4 of the comment section. http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=I_CMgqitv98&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DI_CMgqitv98 Here's what spreadingtheMuse says about it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That sounds about right. The jacket has a fabric "memory" which will return it to station after all other forces have expired: his momentum, his generated oscillations, etc. Its all there, and it all has its say, then it all evens out. I told you nothing interfered. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is who spreadingtheMuse is. http://www.youtube.com/user/SpreadingtheMuse He claims to be a physicist. Please tell us whether you think that SpreadingtheMuse is right, or wrong when he defends that explanation.
It would be moved by the gust of wind created by the astronaut's passing and it would occilate before coming to a stop.
They said it was nylon, therefore it was nylon. Give me a break.
The issue is whether something would occilate after being set in motion in atmosphere. Something really light would come to a quick stop. Something heavier would occilate a while before coming to a stop. The heavier the material, the longer it would occilate. The flag in the Apollo 15 video occilated for a while because it was made of heavier material than the flag in the MythBusters video. Slow-motion accounts for the time it occilates and the speed at which it occilates. http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1021 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4 I think I have to agree with a few posters in some of the MythBusters comment sections. http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=XAcXBT-GZCo&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DXAcXBT-GZCo They made it clear how easy it is to fake moon missions. If you don't follow through on you position of the swinging jacket corner, you have to admit you were mistaken. If you keep refusing to answer my questions, I'll keep asking them so it will be obvious to everybody that you're not debating in good faith. |
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Sep 6 2008, 03:08 PM Post #461 |
|
More humor from DavidC! I'm only responding to the replies to my postings. Unlike DavidC I can differentiate between different people and exercise basic netiquette.
They said it was nylon, it looked like nylon, it behaved like nylon. There is no sane reason to think it wasn't nylon. Give me a break.
Only in your opinion but not supported by facts. In the case of fabric, something heavier would have more drag and would oscillate less. You didn't really think this through did you? |
|
|
|
| David C | Sep 6 2008, 03:29 PM Post #462 |
|
Are you saying it was impossible to make a lighter material look like the Apollo 15 flag?
The heavier it is, the less the atmophere can make it stop moving. A chain swinging in atmosphere would not look that different from a chain swinging in a vacuum. Surface area causes drag. If the weight is increased and the surface area remains the same, the force to overcome the resistence of atmosphere is stronger so it will occilate longer. Imagine a swinging iron chain and a swinging paper chain of the same dimensions. I also want to hear your opinion of the three different reasons for the swinging jacket corner given by three different pro-Apollo people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Wrong! The jacket is tied at the back. When his body goes down, so does the back of the jacket. Which is attached to the front corner of the jacket. Simple." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Its obviously a result of destructive interference in the oscillating longitudinal waves created by Collins zero-g movement." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In zero-g, the corner will return to rest in the same position as related to its position in the rest of the jacket, regardless of orientation. This is not a diffucult concept. Ciao ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you read the comment section, you'll see that spreadingtheMuse has said that all three are correct. Do you agree with him? In the comment section he said he was a physicist. http://es.youtube.com/user/SpreadingtheMuse |
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Sep 6 2008, 08:32 PM Post #463 |
|
Did I say that? No. You really like to try to put words in other people's mouths don't you? I'm saying there is no sane reason to think it wasn't nylon.
How is a chain fabric? When swinging like a flag, a lightweight fabric flutters more and presents less surface area to the oncoming air. A heavier fabric will hang down more, flutter less and present more surface area to oncoming air. Heavier fabrics also tend to be stiffer. Why can't you accept the obvious conclusion that the flag was moving in a vacuum?
More credibility tests from DavidC? How predictable! What makes you think anyone will fall for you lame obvious tests? Why can't they all be correct, each describing a separate yet valid part of the same system? |
|
|
|
| David C | Sep 7 2008, 10:35 AM Post #464 |
|
If it's so basic, why does HeadLikeARock refuse to explain his position? He seems to think that both of these explanations are correct. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Wrong! The jacket is tied at the back. When his body goes down, so does the back of the jacket. Which is attached to the front corner of the jacket. Simple." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Its obviously a result of destructive interference in the oscillating longitudinal waves created by Collins zero-g movement." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If the corner of the jacket goes back up because it's pulled by the point of the jacket that's attached to Collins' back, how are waves involved? He hasn't explained it. Why don't you explain it? This is from post #460.
I want to hear from both you and HeadLikeARock on the above.
If we take two flags with the same dimensions--one made of light material and one made of dense material--and take them to the same angle and let them go, the one made of light material will stop swinging back and forth sooner as the dampening effect of the air overcomes the movement faster as it has less weight pushing against the air. The heavier the material, the longer it will swing back and forth. Imagine two chains with the same dimensions--one made of iron and the other made of paper--which were caused to swing by taking them to the same angle and letting them go. The surface area would cause the same drag but the paper chain would stop swinging back and forth much sooner as the dampening effect of the air would not be overcome by the weight of the paper nearly as much as it would be overcome by the weight of iron. This is why the flag in the MythBuster clip stops moving sooner than the flag in the Apollo 15 clip does--it's made of lighter material. At no time in any Apollo footage does the flag move from a standstill exept when it's perfectly consistent with the atmosphere explanation. Slow-motion explains the length of time the flag continues to occilate and the speed at which it occilates. http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1021 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs Please stop avoiding my questions about the three different explanations for the same swinging jacket corner anomaly. |
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Sep 7 2008, 11:47 AM Post #465 |
|
I've avoided nothing. You just don't like the answers.
When did I say it was "so basic"? You really need to stop putting words in other's mouths. I am unable to comment on another poster's motivations. Why do you think I could? You still didn't answer the question. Why can't they all be correct, each describing a separate yet valid part of the same system? Why should I try to explain it to you when it is obvious you won't understand it and you won't listen anyway? Seriously, when you come off as an arrogant blowhard that acts like he can do no wrong, why would you expect people to do you favors? It is still only YOUR OPINION that the flag the Mythbusters used was a lighter material. Until you can prove that ridulous assumption it will remain YOUR OPINION. |
|
|
|
| David C | Sep 7 2008, 12:36 PM Post #466 |
|
Your attitude is that it's basic.
Because HeadLikeARock's explanation that the corner was pulled by the part of the jacket that was attached to Collins' back is not consistent with SpreadingtheMuse's explanation that the upward movement of the jacket corner was caused by destructive interference in the oscillating longitudinal waves created by Collins zero-g movement. I can't visualize how waves are involved if the corner was pulled by the part of the jacket that was attached to Collins' back. That's why I want HeadLikeARock to explain his position. It's not enough just to state a position. One has to explain why it's logical. This is really something pretty basic in debating.
You seem to be saying that you can explain it. You should explain it for the sake of he viewers; I'm not the only one here you know.
That explanation is plausible so the mythBusters video doesn't debunk the theory that the flag was moved by air in a studio. MythBusters also seems to be saying that the astronaut touched the flag which can't be true as the size of the helmet when the astronaut is next to the flag is much smaller than it is when he goes by it and makes it move. That MythBusters video about the flag was just a lame attempt at damage-control by the government. You can pretend all you want but you know you can't explain why those three explanations for the swinging jacket corner can all be correct because they can't all be correct. You pro-Apollo people should have meetings and discuss your stragegy before you address an issue so you don't contradict each other. You are in a pickle now and I'm going to make sure this gets mentioned at least two or three times per page on this thread so if you think you can bury it to reduce the number of people who see it, you're flogging a dead horse. Face it--you're all washed up credibility-wise; if this were a debating hall, the audience woud be roaring at you people with laughter right now. |
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Sep 7 2008, 01:57 PM Post #467 |
|
You know my attitude now? From a few lines of text? HA! You're funny!
If you can't visualize it, why do you think you'll understand it? The movement of the corner of the jacket can be described by a system of waves. The attachment to the back of the jacket creates the interference. Quit being so obtuse.
Ah yes, your mythical viewers that never seem to show up when you need them. Where are they again? I'm a viewer and I think you're full of it.
You can't seem to understand that the Mythbusters were not even dealing with the incident you're talking about. The ONLY thing they were talking about is when the flag moved when the astronauts were touching the pole. This was already pointed out to you once. Please try to keep up. Your paranoia is showing.
Back to your debating hall crap again? What debating hall would accept your lame, rigged, obvious credibility tests? If you can't understand why diferent people can give different explanations then you are beyond hope. Your paranoia is showing DavidC. Edited by weasel_turbine, Sep 7 2008, 02:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
| David C | Sep 8 2008, 10:11 AM Post #468 |
|
I see you didn't deal with this.
|
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Sep 8 2008, 06:37 PM Post #469 |
|
You're just trolling for attention now because the argument passed you by a long time ago. I explained my position on the Collins jacket corner in PAINSTAKING DETAIL several times on this thread, both in words and using GIFs to demonstrate the point I was making. You've tried to weasel out of discussing the evidence by presenting a sentence by someone else on a different forum to this, claiming that both explanations are mututally exclusive, even though you admitted you didn't have a clue what the other person meant! Despite this, I played along with your game for a while by trying to get you to at least understand what a longitidudinal wave was, and how a force caused that wave. You cannot grasp this concept. How can anyone be expected to explain anything further to you if you can't get to first base? I also told you SEVERAL TIMES, that I believed my explanation was more succinct and easier to understand to the layman than the other guy's, which I also said was a DESCRIPTION of what was seen, rather than an EXPLANATION. I gave you links to definitions of the words DESCRIPTION and EXPLANATION in case you weren't sure of the difference. It was supposed to be tongue in cheek. Your answers suggest you either don't know the difference, or you're being deliberately obtuse. |
|
|
|
| David C | Sep 9 2008, 09:36 AM Post #470 |
|
If you say both explanations are correct, you have to explain it. If the jacket corner moves because it is pulled, I can't see how waves are involved. Please explain. Do you agree with weasel_turbine's explanation from post #467 below here?
He didn't go into any detail on how the movement of the jacket corner can be described as a system of waves. It's not enough just to state it. It has to be explained. You also ignored my question in post #468. Please answer it. If everything you people have said about the swinging jacket corner is true, it should all fit together and you shouldn't have any trouble explaining it.
I googled it right away and I found it easy to understand. I told you that. Don't you remember? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_wave Understanding what longitudinal waves are doesn't make it any easier to see how waves are involved if the corner of the jacket goes back down because it is pulled by the part of the jacket that's attached to Collins' back. It's not enough to explain what longitudinal waves are. You have to explain why both explanations--one invloving puling the other involving waves--can be correct. If you don't want to explain it for me, explain it for all the people who are following this discussion.
When I look at these two explanations, one doesn't seem more succinct than the other. They look totally different from each other.
If the wave explanation is a description of what spreadingtheMuse sees, he is seeing waves. Do you see waves? If so, where do they come from? I still can't see how waves are involved in any way if the corner of the jacket goes back down because it's pulled by the part of the jacket that's tied to Collins' back. Again I ask you to please answer the question I asked in post #468. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Sep 9 2008, 12:48 PM Post #471 |
|
I don't have to do any such thing. I've explained how I perceive the motion of the jacket corner, and I think it's a better explanation than any other I've read. That doesn't mean that any other explanation is fundamentally wrong.
Ask weasel-turbine, I've already explained my opinion to you.
You ignored many of my questions in posts 431, 434, 437. Please answer them.
I did explain it. You didn't understand it.
You still don't get it. I explained to you by means of a simplified example (slinky spring), how a force can cause a wave, which is the specific question you asked to be explained to you. If you can grasp how a force can cause a wave in a spring, you can grasp how a force can cause a wave in some material. Here's another simple example for you. Take a bed-sheet. Hold both corners. Quickly lift and lower the corners. Watch as a lovely wave flows along the material. Guess what? You just created a wave, in material, by using a force. I can't make it any simpler for you.
I can't believe there's anyone reading the thread who didn't understand what I was getting at with my explanation of the motion of Collins jacket corner. Except you.
Again I ask you to please answer the points I raised in posts 431, 434, 437. |
|
|
|
| David C | Sep 9 2008, 01:31 PM Post #472 |
|
That's easy to understand but how is that involved if the corner of the jacket was pulled up by the place at the back of the jacket where it was attached to Collins' back?
All you've done was tap dance around it. You've explained what longitudinal waves are and how they are created but you haven't explained what role they play in your explanation that the corner of the jacket moved downward in spite of Newton's first law of motion because the place where the jacket was attached to Collins' back pulled it. Please explain how waves are involved here. That's the issue. That's what you haven't explained. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98 (50 second mark)
If it turns out that Percy was right about the flap, it's evidence of fakery. If it turns out Percy was wrong, there's still the issue of whether it was on the moon, or in a studio. That issue won't settle anything if it turns out Percy was wrong. You're just using that to avoid answering the question because you are between a rock and a hard place. Three explanations have been given for the swinging jacket corner by three different pro-Apollo people. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Wrong! The jacket is tied at the back. When his body goes down, so does the back of the jacket. Which is attached to the front corner of the jacket. Simple." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Its obviously a result of destructive interference in the oscillating longitudinal waves created by Collins zero-g movement." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In zero-g, the corner will return to rest in the same position as related to its position in the rest of the jacket, regardless of orientation. This is not a diffucult concept. Ciao ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you are right, the other two can't be right. If they can, you have to explain why. All you've done is tap dance around the issue and then have the attitude that you've explained it. SpreadingtheMuse has contradicted himself in the comment section of the video. First he said this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Its obviously a result of destructive interference in the oscillating longitudinal waves created by Collins zero-g movement." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Then, he said you and he were both right without explaining how. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Both of you can't be right." Yes we can. Cosmo you cant imagine how difficult it is to explain years of missed education in one post. You simply arent smart enough. Every second of your life you are being overwhelmed by DOZENS of seperate forces: Momentum, gravity, inertia, centripetal force etc etc etc. No one of them overrides the others, and they all work together AT THE SAME TIME. Any explanation that includes one, by definition includes the others as well. Its 8th grade physics. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then, he agreed with the third explanation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In zero-g, the corner will return to rest in the same position as related to its position in the rest of the jacket, regardless of orientation. This is not a diffucult concept. Ciao ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That sounds about right. The jacket has a fabric "memory" which will return it to station after all other forces have expired: his momentum, his generated oscillations, etc. Its all there, and it all has its say, then it all evens out. I told you nothing interfered. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you think he has any credibility? http://es.youtube.com/user/SpreadingtheMuse Was he correct when he said both your explanation and his were correct? Was he correct when he said the third one was also correct? You have a record of trying to avoid making your fellow pro-Apollo posters look bad by disagreeing with them when they lie. http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094 http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand On the thread that disappeared on the old site you finally conceded that Jay Windley was wrong about the dust-free sand issue but you lamely said he was mistaken even though he said he knew what he knew from experience. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18777 That is a case of either deceit, or defective thinking. I think it was deceit. I know you are going to keep pretending otherwise but you have no credibility. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Sep 9 2008, 03:28 PM Post #473 |
|
That's easy to understand as well, I really can't understand why you're having such an issue with this.
Nope, I explained it several times! I told you I think my EXPLANATION is better than the DESCRIPTION given by SpreadTheMuse.
Anyone with a mildly inquisitive mind who understands how waves travel along a spring, and how waves form in a bed-sheet when flicked, should be capable of figuring out what's going on here. Noone's saying there are perfectly formed transverse waves that are sinusoidal, or exactly the kind of longitudinal waves seen in a slinky spring, but if you agitate a piece of cloth (in the manner Collins does by his up-and-down "jogging on the spot" motion), then it doesn't take a Nobel Prize winner to realise that the energy input by Collins motion is going to be transmitted through the material (similar to the bedsheet example earlier, or a streamer on the end of a wand). How is that energy transmitted? Waves perhaps? Similar to how waves are transmitted in a flag perhaps? Only in everyday vernacular we call that "rippling". Look at Collins jacket. You can see it rippling, flapping, call it what you like. Energy is being transmitted through the jacket "in a wave-like-manner".
Percy was wrong, you simply choose to tap-dance around the issue and hope it will go away. You included this as part of your "mountain" of evidence. If you believe that to be the case, you should be prepared to check and see whether Percy was wrong. I did. He's wrong. You just lack the intellectual honesty to admit that.
The first 2 sentences have been throughly explained to you: mine is an explanation, the other is a description. The last sentence can be true for many different materials, sometimes even in gravity. For example, take a square piece of light card. Fold a crease through the middle of it. Hold the card on one side, and flick the other. It returns to roughly the same position, regardless of whether the orientation of the card. The card has a tendency to return to it's "starting configuration" when external forces are removed, due to the internal forces in the fibres. So there you go DavidC. I believe my explanation is better than SpreadTheMuses description. The third sentence can in many instances be correct. No doubt you'll figure out a way to say how I've been deliberately deceptive, or have obfuscated the issue, or haven't sufficiently explained it for you, or have tap danced around the issue without answering, or am stuck between a rock and a hard place, or am being laughed at by your imaginary debating hall. Yes David. Whatever you say David.
From what I've read, he has infinitely more credibility than you, due to a division by zero error.
Given your absence of critical thinking and analytical skills, having no credibility in your eyes is a ringing endorsement as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for the compliment! |
|
|
|
| David C | Sep 10 2008, 10:27 AM Post #474 |
|
More tap dancing--just explain it if you think waves were involved. If it's impossible to explain how waves are involved because waves were not involved in your explanation that |