Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can't See the Trees for the Forrest

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Can't See the Trees for the Forrest

    Can't See the Trees for the Forrest

    Monday May 5th, 2006. This is show # 96.

    Summary:

    * Retired computer engineer Bob Ball from IN confirmed NASA's serious, though unnecessary, concern in the 60s of too much moon dust, which concern was promoted by Dr. Thomas Gold himself, the very man our caller Forrest had spoken to claiming that NASA had no such concern, especially not when they designed the Lunar Lander!
    * So Forrest the atheist called in for more, and did not accept Bob Ball's report that Dr. Thomas Gold was the very astronomer who most promoted the unnecessary dust concern .
    * Darrell of Goshen put the nail in the coffin of Forrest's doubt by quoting NASA's own website which states, "astronomer Thomas Gold asserted, however, that the apparently smooth areas on the moon were likely to be covered with a layer of fine dust several meters thick, raising the prospect that the lunar module might sink out of sight."
    * NASA's own historical account concludes EXACTLY as Bob has been surmising on the air, ABSOLUTELY REFUTING FORREST'S FIRST SPECIFIC CRITICISM OF BOB, that the: "Spacecraft engineers at Houston's Manned Spacecraft Center, meanwhile, in spite of their real need for this information [how much dust] in designing the lunar landing module, had to go ahead without it." So as we suspected, the fear of deep moon dust was still in the minds of the engineers when they designed the Lunar Lander's feet, and NASA's own website falsifies Forrest's version of Dr. Gold's dusty past.
    * Indiana Senate candidate Greg Walker opposes abortion and supports flogging for criminals! (Note: To find the flogging link, go to the "search" feature on that site and type in "flogging." The article should be the very 1st link listed.)
    * Today's Resource: If you like science, you'll LOVE reading Bob Enyart's all-time favorite science book, Dr. Walt Brown's In the Beginning (or your money back)!
    Last edited by Jefferson; May 15, 2006, 08:17 PM.
    WARNING: Graphic video here.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jefferson
    ABSOLUTELY REFUTING FORREST'S FIRST SPECIFIC CRITICISM OF BOB, that the:
    All caps is considered rude internet comunication.
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by fool
      All caps is considered rude internet comunication.



      That's all you gotta say???


      Well, I guess it's all you can say, since there is no refuting what is fact, huh?

      Today's fortune cookie say: " The mighty oak was once a little nut that stood its ground."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 2ephesians8


        That's all you gotta say???
        I haven't listened to the show so that is all I have at first glance.
        Well, I guess it's all you can say, since there is no refuting what is fact, huh?
        If it's so obvious why all the shouting?
        Everyman is a voice in the dark.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by fool
          All caps is considered rude internet comunication.
          Only if the ENTIRE post or the title of the thread is in ALL CAPS.
          Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
          TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

          Comment


          • #6
            I was looking forward to hearing the follow-up call of Forrest... any idea when he'll be back on?


            "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants." - Schopenhauer

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Paradõsis
              I was looking forward to hearing the follow-up call of Forrest... any idea when he'll be back on?
              Nope.
              WARNING: Graphic video here.

              Comment


              • #8
                NASA trying to have it both ways with revisionist footnote...

                That NASA sentence about fears of deep moon dust that (then BEL listener; now producer) Darrell Birkey quoted, ends like this:
                Cornell University astronomer Thomas Gold asserted, however, that the apparently smooth areas on the moon were likely to be covered with a layer of fine dust several meters thick, raising the prospect that the lunar module might sink out of sight with only a short-lived dust cloud to mark its disappearance.10

                Normally, footnotes provide the source for what is stated in the text. In this case, the footnote contradicts the text, and is a revisionist attempt by NASA to have it both ways. That Footnote #10 says:
                10. Benjamine J. Garland, memo for Apollo proj. off., "Characteristics of the Lunar Surface," Aug. 14, 1961; Thomas Gold, "Structure of the Moon's Surface," in J. W. Salisbury and P. E. Glaser, eds., The Lunar Surface Layer (London: Academic Press, 1964), pp. 345-53. Gold interpreted radar, optical, and thermal properties of the lunar surface as indicating a layer of fine particles up to several meters thick whose mechanical properties would be difficult to predict. He suggested that at the very least a lunar landing would be compromised by blinding clouds of dust raised by the exhaust from the descent engine. In the popular press, Gold's hypothesis was taken to mean that a lunar module could sink out of sight. The pictures returned by Ranger 7 (July 1964) gave Gold no reason to change his thinking; see R. Cargill Hall, Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger, NASA SP-4210 (Washington, 1977), p.285; also Gold, "Ranger Moon Pictures; Implications," Science 145 (1964): 1046-48. Most Ranger scientists agreed that the TV pictures from Ranger 7 gave no basis for drawing conclusions about the load-bearing characteristics of the surface. They did give some useful information about the distribution and size of craters and the slopes of lunar terrain on a smaller scale than had been possible. Gold remarked after the conclusion of Ranger that its pictures were like mirrors: "everyone sees his own theories reflected in them." Hall, Lunar Impact, p. 309. For a bibliography of studies on the lunar surface up to the first successful Ranger mission, see J. W. Salisbury, ed., Bibliography of Lunar and Planetary Research - 1960-1964, AFCRL-66-52, U.S. Air Force Office of Aerospace Research, Cambridge Research Laboratories, Jan. 1966.

                A listener wrote in stating about this Footnote #10 that:
                Originally posted by David Willis
                They are implying that Gold's view was not based on any time/dust rate assumptions but rather from radar, optical and thermal measurements.
                Of course this is not true and is revisionism, as David points out below; as per the article itself; and per the popularity of the controversy at the time; and per engineer Bob Ball's first-hand account after following the events at the time. Notice also that when the footnote attributes the origin of this notion to the "popular press" it provides no reference to a media report exaggerating NASA's concern. And if this were true, it would be absurd that the article itself would do exactly what the footnote was correcting against: strongly implying that the full concern came from NASA's Thomas Gold (member of the Nat'l Academy of Sciences, a Fellow of the Royal Society, Cornell astronomer, etc.). What, that couldn't be corrected in the writing and editing of the article. In writing history, or any non-fiction, you don't put the error in the text, and the correction in the footnote, unless you have an aggressive political agenda.

                Originally posted by David Willis
                That footnote suggests it was NOT about concern for "sinking", but only kicking up dust when landing that could obscure sight. It seems a bit "revisionist" to me. They just FINISHED saying that it WAS about a concern of SINKING...and that it would be "several meters thick". Now they say "In the popular press, Gold's hypothesis was taken to mean that a lunar module could sink out of sight" -- as if that was just a silly notion of the "popular press."

                Maybe the key words are "out of sight". If it SINKS (the word THEY used) into dust "several meters thick" it may NOT disappear totally out of sight! The bottom line of course is that the lander feet WERE designed with thick dust in mind. It'd be fun to find something Gold himself wrote verifying that it was NOT just about kicking up dust.

                Perhaps one of your listeners can get their hands on that bibliography (J. W. Salisbury, ed., Bibliography of Lunar and Planetary Research - 1960-1964, AFCRL-66-52, U.S. Air Force Office of Aerospace Research, Cambridge Research Laboratories, Jan. 1966) and review it for you and post the relevant excerpts to the BEL Forum on TheologyOnline.com.
                Yes perhaps. That would be cool! And thanks David and Darrell, two members of the brightest audience in the country!

                -Bob Enyart
                Last edited by Bob Enyart; January 26, 2013, 10:26 AM.
                The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Could someone explain the point of all this?

                  Some early measurements of the rate of dust accumulation on Earth indicated that the Moon could have several meters of dust on it. These measurements made some assumptions, and we now realize what was wrong with them, but around 1960, scientists thought there may be deep dust.

                  The Ranger missions in the early 1960s seemed to indicate that there wasn't a thick layer of dust, but there was still some debate.

                  That debate ended when Surveryor I landed on the moon in 1966. But by this time the Lunar Module design had already been set with relatively large foot pads.

                  By the time the Apollo 11 crew landed on the Moon, there were no concerns that the dust layer was thick.

                  Later experiments of dust accumulation have cleared up the problems with the early dust-accumulation experiment, and the dust layer on the Moon is consistent with those more accurate measurements.

                  How does this relate to creationism?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Frayed Knot View Post
                    creationism?
                    Neg rep.
                    Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

                    Titus 1

                    For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

                    Ephesians 5

                    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X