I get an Error message at the link, Jim:

Your client does not have permission to get URL /s1600 from this server.

Any idea what that means? I'd really like to see that "deploma".

Originally posted by JimO

Yeah, I see I just won my bet about which looney would be first out of the box on the 'paid disinformation agent' smear.

Welcome to ATS Jim. I would like to respectfully point out that we do not refer to fellow members of ATS as "loonies".

If you disagree with a fellow member you have to do so in a respectful manner. While I believe you were less than forthcoming with the true facts of the Apollo Missions I respect your intellect and vast knowledge of the subject.

I must confess, though, that seeing you on the Larry King show was a disappoinment. You looked tired, sick, even though you are a large man I'll bet you are well over 300 pounds which does not bode well for your general health. You were not your former erudite self; you missed questions which had to be repeated and you flubbed the answers.

It was not the Jim Oberg we all knew and loved to hate in the good old days. It was kind of like when Phil Klass started to fade, but of course, he was much older than you.

Anyway welcome to ATS, please keep your insults respectful and to a minimum, you have loads of company.

Let's do some REAL verifiable research here.

Yeah, thats the catch. "Verifiable". Verifiable by who? NAZA? ESA? The Easter Bunny? Alice in Wonderland? Gimme a break.

But please, don't ask me about earth-moon neutral points or secret lunar atmospheres.... I fall off my chair too easily these days.

May I respectfully point out that in your general condition, as it appeared to be on the Larry King Show, that could prove to be fatal and I certainly would not want to be the one to be the cause of that.

So I will limit my questions on the earth-moon neutral point to this:

Wernher Von Braun was quoted as saying that the neutral point between the earth and the moon was 43,495 miles. Was he misquoted?

Thanks for the post and thanks for identifying yourself.

"I must confess, though, that seeing you on the Larry King show was a disappoinment. You looked tired, sick, even though you are a large man I'll bet you are well over 300 pounds which does not bode well for your general health. You were not your former erudite self; you missed questions which had to be repeated and you flubbed the answers. "

What on God's green Earth are you talking about? I haven't been on the Larry King show since the last century.

Does John think he's funny or something?

I'd love to get a hold of you on a forum that isn't as highly moderated as this one, just so I could feed you a piece of your own medicine. John's posts remind me of a troglodyte who just found a highly polished silver spoon. He hopes the shine will distract from his ugliness.

Originally posted by JimO

"I must confess, though, that seeing you on the Larry King show was a disappoinment. You looked tired, sick, even though you are a large man I'll bet you are well over 300 pounds which does not bode well for your general health. You were not your former erudite self; you missed questions which had to be repeated and you flubbed the answers. "

What on God's green Earth are you talking about? I haven't been on the Larry King show since the last century.

Sorry Jim. My Bad. I thought that was you on the last Larry King show on UFO's. No wonder it didn't look like you. Please accept my apologies.

Originally posted by johnlear
Oberg is infinitely more knowledgeable on every detail of the Apollo and other NAZA programs and therefore is able to fabricate 'debunking' stories that normally one would believe.

Mr.Oberg does appear to be a knowledgeable and forthcoming person, but as to his ability to "fabricate" I'm not sure... Methinks he's not a match for a bunch of fraudsters running around with "deplomas" in "Meta Physics" (sheesh) and pointing to grainy artifacts on film claiming these are magnificent lunar palaces and what not.


[edit on 27-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by johnlear
I must confess, though, that seeing you on the Larry King show was a disappoinment. You looked tired, sick, even though you are a large man I'll bet you are well over 300 pounds which does not bode well for your general health.

John, just how low can you go? Even if you did see Mr.O on the King show (and he says he didn't do it in many years), attacking somebody's appearance here, on ATS, and in such a vile manner, blows a large hole in the T&C , but never mind the T&C, there is a minimal level of human decency that you seem to summarily neglect. Your speech seems full of hate.

I haven't seen many of you pictures, John (you aren't famous after all), but from little I saw, sadly, you didn't look like a model of health yourself. I can't imagine ANY member of ATS attacking you on these grounds. Amazingly, you went for the low blow yourself.

Then you go on saying:

you missed questions which had to be repeated and you flubbed the answers

This one made me laugh, albeint with tears in my eye. It is you, John, who once in a while has to resort to "no comment" answer when you don't have anything at all to say, and who's dodging a straight argument.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

John, just how low can you go? Even if you did see Mr.O on the King show (and he says he didn't do it in many years), attacking somebody's appearance here, on ATS, and in such a vile manner, blows a large hole in the T&C , but never mind the T&C, there is a minimal level of human decency that you seem to summarily neglect. Your speech seems full of hate.

I agree, it was not my best moment. There is no excuse for my attack.

We should be honored to have an intellect and knowledge base as a member here on ATS.

I apologize again both to Mr. Oberg and my fellow members.

I haven't seen many of you pictures, John (you aren't famous after all), but from little I saw, sadly, you didn't look like a model of health yourself.

This was taken within the past month or so and although I may not be the model of health myself I think the hat makes up for what I lack.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

originally posted by johnlear
......you missed questions which had to be repeated and you flubbed the answers.

That's the pot calling the kettle black, is it not? LOL.

OMG! Thats not against the T&C.........is it?

Here's another example of me calling the kettle black.

Me and Zorgon up at the mine for the Thanksgiving weekend.

Off topic, but curious what the weather was like there when that picture was taken. I noticed you were both wearing long sleeves. My wife's grandfather owns two defunct silver mines outside of Yearington, Nevada. I was only there once, but do remember it being damn cold, especially toward the evenings and at night.

Another side note, that mine site would be a great place to set up an amateur observatory.

May I indulge in another off-topic post?

It is indeed pleasure to see that photo, John and Zorgon. Truly, having a personal touch in a forum like this makes a huge difference. Too many (and I have been guilty) tend to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. I was thinking that was a deep thought, but I have no more to say. Except, I appreciate the work that you both do.

Thank you for expanding our minds.

TJ (ww)

The second way of calculating the boundary came into fashion when mathematicians began actually computing earth-moon trajectories, and had to chose a point to switch the computations from Earth-centered to Moon-centered. The 'sphere of influence' concept was computationally most practical. That's the second approach.

And in real terms, it's the only 'authentic' definition, as you can show by calculating the Earth-SUN 'neutral point' both ways, and see that the 'classic' (i.e., pre-Space-Age) method gives a neutral point CLOSER to Earth than the moon's orbit -- counter-intuitive and contrary to several billion years of loyal lunar earth-orbiting.

Originally posted by JimO
no similar excuse allowed for the poster on this thread earlier who said that spacecraft-based accelerometers would measure zero at and only at the 'neutral point' -- hoagwash! Twenty lashes with a Mars face nose hair.

With all due respect, sir, the above applies only when that accelerometer measures the acceleration in the reference frame of the craft. However, as an example, if there is a Doppler device onboard that measures velocity relative to Earth (for example), then acceleration can be calculated and of course, it won't be zero.

In any event, it's not difficult to calculate accelerations relative to Earth at least in a simple 1D model of the translunar flight, just to see the scale. What will become apparent is that there is a large chunk of the translunar trajectory where such accelerations are so small they would be damn hard to measure with any kind of device. So it would be very hard to determine the location of the minimum of that function with any precision.


[edit on 27-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by JimO

Further -- this famous image from the 1865 Verne novel, 'From the Earth to the Moon', shows the occupants floating weightless inside their space vehicle. It has often been incorrectly labeled as showing that Verne correctly predicted that space travelers would experience zero-G and float inside their vehicles.

But Verne didn't predict that. His travelers floated off their chairs only at the precise 'neutral point' between Earth and Moon, at the old 'classic' distance -- which was bad physics. At least his excuse was the idea was 'unearthly'.

Thanks for the post Jim. Do you have a source or reference for that conclusion? Specifically the statement:

"But Verne didn't predict that. His travelers floated off their chairs only at the precise 'neutral point' between Earth and Moon, at the old 'classic' distance."

And also, is the 'old, classic' neutral distance (the one which was bad physics) the one that Von Braun gave us, 43,495 miles?

One more question: What is the new, 'good physics' neutral point?

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by johnlear
And also, is the 'old, classic' neutral distance (the one which was bad physics) the one that Von Braun gave us, 43,495 miles?

John, a number given without context or provenance except for a quote from a well known scientist doesn't mean a lot. Let me give you an example: I measure the voltage of my car battery and it's 7.5V. This can mean any of a plethora of things - dirty terminals, faulty voltmeter, dead battery or myself being intoxicated at the time of the measurement, or even that I was speaking of my daughter's toy car and was misunderstood. Unless there is a paper which explains how one arrived to a number, I wouldn't put stock in it. You, of course, would take it to mean that there is a conspiracy in car industry and the real voltage in all car batteries is 7.5V as opposed to 12V.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Unless there is a paper which explains how one arrived to a number, I wouldn't put stock in it.

John's shown a couple of times how he got his neutral point number of around 43K miles. He doesn't know how to use the ^ symbol to represent powers, but he states that before his calculation.

Also, how does measuring the voltage of your car (subject to many possible experimental flaws) compare to directly substituting numbers into an equation?

If you repeated the experiment on the car, you might measure 7.4 Volts, or 7.6V. You might even measure 13V and found that after you cleaned your terminals, that the battery was fully charged. However, when you substitute the same numbers into the same equation, you'll always get the same result, right?

I don't see how you can draw an analogy between measuring results and calculating results.