User talk:Лъчезар/Archive 1

Igor Panarin
Did I make it look easy? Actually I spent quite a long time over those edits. Thanks for pointing out that the Guardian commentator was not accurately quoting Panarin -- I had missed that. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it can seem easy only at first look, but after rereading it I saw that you've done a good job. I think that in writing, most time is usually spent in planning than in actual typing, just like in programming. So I appreciate the job you've done. Thank you! :) Лъчезар (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, great additions to the article!  Math Cool  10  Sign here! 21:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hope so :) Лъчезар (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Panarin photo
Hello. What is the actual source of the image on the Panarin article, please? Jonathunder (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please answer the question above, and please do not keep taking photos from other sources and claiming them as your own. You have been warned more than once. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing. Jonathunder (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Administrator, Since when the accused is obliged to give evidence of innocence before the prosecutor? What about the presumption of innocence? Isn't the prosecutor who should provide the necessary evidence of guilt? Лъчезар (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know, Wikipedia is not a court - it's much worse! Everyone who claims authorship of a work must provide evidence, such as the photo camera with which he created the photo, the pencil with which he created the sketch, the computer with which he created the table or chart. He must provide at least 2 sober witnesses who had carefully watched him while he was creating it. After an year-long trial deciding whether he really created the work, it may solemnly be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons under the sounds of the nearest military brass band.

Congrats
Congratulations on getting Igor Panarin promoted to a good article. Nice work. Jonathunder (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Without your uncompromising position on the image copyright issues, this wouldn't have been possible :) Лъчезар (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I just don't have time right now to take on more peer reviews. Good luck with the article! Scartol  •  Tok  11:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010
I have nominated Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above text was auto-inserted via a template:Adw "substitution", not hand-typed. Today the request was closed with a "keep" result :) --Лъчезар (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christopher Martenson
A tag has been placed on Christopher Martenson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.  Teapot  george Talk  11:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Christopher Martenson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.  Teapot  george Talk  20:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Christopher Martenson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.  Teapot  george Talk  10:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Still, it survived, thanks to two other users! :) --Лъчезар (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronouncing your name
Looking at the IPA of your name, I would say "Lut-shay-zar" would be a reasonable English transcription of your name. "u" is usually the best vowel to use for a schwa; "she" is /ʃi/ in IPA so the closest we can get is "shay" /ʃei/. Take care. Samboy (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion (10 letters versus just 7 :) --Лъчезар (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010 GA Failure
Hi. I have failed this article's GA nomination for the reasons I gave at the talk page. It's well-organized, comprehensive and balanced, but the actual prose needs more cleanup than I can reasonably do myself. Once that's done, it could probably be renominated successfully. Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review and suggestions! Hopefully, as it has already happened in the past, a native English speaker can help here. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Apollo staging footage
Apollo 11 liftoff through first staging Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 23:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I also watched this footage, which is almost the same but with added altitude and velocity data. Noticed that the velocity at S-IC staging time increases as much as 10 times faster than just after lift-off. Whereas the acceleration data (for Apollo 8, with slightly lesser load) show that the ratio between the acceleration in the beginning and the end of the time when S-IC works (the pink area) should be 1:3, not 1:10! As to S-II, here I can clearly see the light spots so the engines are working. Well, it seems that Popov is wrong but Pokrovsky is right then, as the velocity data is clearly incorrect... --Лъчезар (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what Pokrovsky is right about. But obviously the acceleration increases as the fuel is used up and the rocket becomes lighter. Also the engines are more efficient higher up. The F-1 has 7.5 million pounds of thrust on the ground but about 9 million just before staging.


 * Yes, you're right, but due to the effects you mention and probably others, the acceleration according to NASA increases only 3 times whereas the speed display on the film shows a tenfold increase, which is unreal. --Лъчезар (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Pokrovsky is wrong - you have the velocity figures right there. You can calculate acceleration if you want to. This shows how the acceleration changes. I don't understand what you are saying about accelerations. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 17:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * [[File:Apollo 8 acceleration.png]]


 * That graph of the Apollo 8 g-forces includes 1G of gravity at liftoff. Just after liftoff the g-force is about 1.3, but 1G of that is due to Earth's gravity. So the rocket acceleration is about 0.3 m/s^2 at that point. So it is all consistent. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 17:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant 0.3G, or about 3 m/s^2. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 14:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So the same NASA graph I gave above is in the English Wikipedia under the name you gave above. Well, indeed, I didn't take this 1G into account. Now I estimated the acceleration from the velocity readout display at lift-off at it was about 2.5 m/s2 and at staging about 35 m/s2 indeed. So far so good. But why is the velocity at staging shown as 2763 m/s when in reality it should be about only 2400 m/s? --Лъчезар (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Saturn V says 9920 km/hr, which is 2756 m/s. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 14:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the absolute velocity. The velocity relative to Earth's rotation is only 2360 m/s. And the velocity shown on the film is exactly relative velocity as it starts from 0 m/s before lift-off. This inconsistency shows that the velocity data were manipulated and gives credit to Pokrovsky's findings (at least in my eyes :) --Лъчезар (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You must have bad eyes then. 2756 is consistent with 2763 - these things vary a little bit. 2360 is consistent with 2400 (actually from the 2.4 km/s figure, which is rounded). Bubba73 (talk), 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they're consistent of course, but the film shows a relative speed of 2763 m/s whereas it should be about 2400 m/s. (Relative speed of 2763 m/s would mean absolute speed of 2763 + 400 = 3163 m/s!!!) --Лъчезар (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And why does a faster speed matter? It needs to have a higher factor of safеty so the power of the rocket typically can be higher than the designed value. It gets the rocket into orbit and the third stage is designed to fix any altitude and attitute differences. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  08:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The difference is not mere 1% but as much as 15% here. If you read the flight statistics of the Saturn V launches you'll see how small are the differences between the declared measured speed and projected speed. Obviously there is a simulation error. The guy who did the simulation didn't know that 2760 is the absolute, not relative velocity. But as NASA haven't done the simulation, they're innocent here :) --Лъчезар (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Apollo 8 - you can see the staging, you can see the flames of the second stage engines, and see the rocket pull away from the first stage. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 23:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, S-II engines are clearly working there, indeed. Thanks! --Лъчезар (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting thoughts on this by Pokrovsky in this forum thread. --Лъчезар (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And Apollo 15. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 05:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's some acceleration indeed (measured with a ruler), despite that the rocket gets farther and farther away from the camera. Thanks! --Лъчезар (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The acceleration is minimal. Probably not by the J-2 engines... --Лъчезар (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely not by the J-2 engines. The staging occurs at film time 1:51. The J-2 engines should ignite 2 seconds later (at 1:53). I measure a distance of 5 mm on my screen between S-IC and the rocket at that time (1:53), which increases to 25 mm at time 2:03 (in other words, 10 seconds later, it increased by 25 = 5 = 20 mm), and to 66 mm at time 2:13 (in other words, after another 10 seconds, it increased by 66 - 25 = 41 mm). There is some acceleration indeed, but let's assess it quantitatively. If, looking at the above image, we take a very conservative average acceleration for the first 20 seconds after J-2 ignition of just 7 m/s2, the distance between S-IC and the rocket 10 seconds after the J-2 ignition must be s = a*t2/2 = 7*102 = 700 m, and the distance between them 20 seconds after the ignition must be 7*202 = 2800 m, that is, 4 times more. Whereas we measure a ratio of just 41 / 20 = 2.05 times. This means that the movement is not an uniformly accelerated movement and the J-2 engines are idle. The small acceleration must be caused by other factors. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are basing this on a false assumption. It seems that you are assuming that all of the separation is due to the J-2 engines of the second stage and that isn't true.  There is some initial velocity before the J-2s start.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't assume that. I know that the movement has started due to the impulse by the ejection charges. That's why the distance is non-zero (5 mm on my screen; see above) at the time when J-2 should ignite (1:53 film time). --Лъчезар (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It also takes some seconds for the engines to get up to full thrust. According to the chart in the PDF, the second stage engines don't gt up to thrust until nearly 7 seconds after separation.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did make a wrong assumption. You said that the distance at 20 seconds should be 4 times that at 10 seconds, and that is only true if (1) the initial velocity (and distance) is zero (which it isn't) and (2) the full acceleration starts at ignition (which it doesn't).  Bubba73 (talk), 15:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, my model wasn't very good indeed. Let's follow your chart. As you said, according to it, the engines should start working 7 seconds after the staging, i.e. at 1:51 + 7 = 1:58 in our case. Their acceleration would then be about 9 m/s2. The length of the remaining part of the rocket equals the full rocket length minus the S-IC length, i.e. 111 - 42 = 69 m. Since 1:51 (staging time) till 1:58, the distance between S-IC and the rocket increases to about 1 partial rocket length, i.e. the initial velocity of the uniform movement before the J-2 ignition is v0 = 69 / 7 = 9.8 m/s. Since 1:58 till 2:13, there are 15 seconds of full J-2 thrust. Therefore, the distance between the S-IC and the rocket would be s = s0 + v0*t + a*t2/2 = 69 + 9.8*15 + 9*152/2 = 69 + 147 + 2025/2 = 1228.5 m. Now, let's try to estimate the real distance at 2:13 from the film. I measured a distance at that time as 66 mm (see above), which is about 16.5 partial rocket lengths (which length is about 4 mm at that time). Therefore, 16.5 partial rocket lengths is 16.5 * 69 = 1138.5 m of distance. This is about 7% less than the calculated 1228.5 m, which can be attributed to the roughness of my measurements of the small distances and lengths. Well, you win – congratulations! --Лъчезар (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

When I measured the lengths of the flames of the engines of the first stage of the Saturn 1B and Saturn V (respectively from here and here) against the visible length of the respective rocket on screen. The flame length turned out to be 75 m and 190 m, respectively. Such a large difference (1:2.5) completely excludes also the usage of the engines of the first stage of the Saturn 1B in the Saturn V, as Popov supposes. I think that what's most probable is using "deforced" by 20-22% F-1 engines, as Pokrovsky supposes. --Лъчезар (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Relative velocity at S-IC staging time <= 2400 m/s?
"velocity that must be at most 2400 m/s. " where did you get that figure? Bubba73 (talk), 19:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I took the 2360 m/s figure from Pokrovsky's article, and he in turn took it from a Russian book: И.И.Шунейко. Пилотируемые полеты на Луну, конструкция и характеристики SATURN V APOLLO// Итоги науки и техники. Сер. Ракетостроение. М. 1973. (Translated: I.I.Shuneiko, Piloted flights to the Moon, construction and characteristics of Saturn V Apollo// Scientific and technical results, Rocket-building series, Moscow, 1973). The book is available for download at http://lib.rus.ec/b/118472 as a "zipped" FictionBook 2.0 file (this is a Russian document file format). --Лъчезар (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The book is also available here and chapter 1.1 contains the following sentence: "Отделение первой ступени происходит на высоте 65 км при скорости 2,38 км/сек." (Translated: "The separation of the first stage occurs at a 65 km height and velocity of 2.38 km/s.") Obviously this is the relative velocity we're talking about. Also, in the beginning of chapter 4.1, there is a sentence "По расчету ступень S-II должна увеличить скорость полета от 2,23 до 6,9 км/сек." (Translated: "On specification, the S-II stage must raise the flight velocity from 2.23 to 6.9 km/s.") This is again relative speed, of course. The lesser value can be explained by the fact that that the sentence is about Apollo-4 when the Saturn V was still tested. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if you insist on using some wrong data, it never make it correct. The figure was never heard in any authoritive publication, and again, since the rocket is moving so fast, there is no way that a 24 fps camera that needs to be tracing it can account for the change in viewing angle and the resultant numbers are doomed to be way off from actual practicality.  Also, the video's numbers are said to be simulated numbers, and those are not actual numbers of the rocket speed as well. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  08:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Shuneiko book was one of the most authoritative publications (if not the most authoritative) on the subject in the USSR. Also, the change in the viewing angle doesn't matter as Pokrovsky examines only several consecutive frames. He also takes into account the viewing angle. Where exactly the numbers on the video are said to be simulated? I haven't noticed this. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I noticed this now: "TV footage of the Apollo 11 launch with simulated altitude and velocity data overlaid for reference. In metric system units, naturally. The simulated figures should correlate pretty well with actu...". Sorry for not having noticed this text in advance. If the simulation is done not by NASA, then the issue I noticed is not their problem, of course. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, 2400 or the smaller figures are simply wrong. Bubba73 (talk), 13:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the things you are reading from these authors are intentionally trying to deceive you, but this one may be an honest mistake. In the US we have two "miles" - statute mile (5,280 feet, 1.609 km) and nautical mile (6,076.1 feet, 1.852 km). The ratio of these is approximately 1.15.  Statute miles is the measurement that is commonly used but nautical miles are used for some things.  The space program stuff was reported in nautical miles.  If the speed was given in nautical miles per second and someone converted it to metric and assumed that it was statute miles, they would use the wrong conversion and be low by a factor of 1.15.  The speed at staging of Apollo 11 was 9064.5 feet/sec, or 2763 m/s.  If this was given as 5370 (nautical) miles per hour and the wrong conversion figure was used, they would get 2401 m/s.  I can't say for sure this is what happened, but it is possible that this was an honest mistake.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that a wrong unit conversion can be the problem because the 2760 m/s and similar speeds were mentioned in several other places of the same book too. I don't think that the difference can't be for other reason but that the higher speed is the absolute speed and the lower speed is the relative one. Anyway, NASA didn't do the simulation on that film, so they're innocent here :) --Лъчезар (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it could be. If my calculations are correct, the difference is about 407 m/s at that latitude.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've read somewhere that for Cape Canaveral, it's ~410 m/s. Your calculations are rather precise, congratulations! :) --Лъчезар (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This PDF, figure 1 (page 2 of the document) shows the velocity. It starts about 405 m/s and first staging is at about 2660 m/s, so that is absolute velocity, not relative to the Earth.  So relative to the Earth, it is about 2255 m/s.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the link! I saw the image and albeit it's quite rough, I think that your figures are rather correct. The earthquake I just experienced here (really!) must be a confirmation for that :) --Лъчезар (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yikes! [Can't find a link yet] Is everyone OK there? How often do you have quakes? What are you, Los Angeles east? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Everybody is OK, the earthquake was weak and probably originated in Vrancea Mountains in Romania. But there, it could be much stronger... Let's hope that the Romanians are OK too but we'll see the news later... --Лъчезар (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The new agencies reported that the earthquake was at 7:49 UTC, with about magnitude about 5 (Richter magnitude scale) here in Varna, and its epicentre was to the east of Shabla in the Black Sea. Small damages in Shabla and nearby towns and villages. No people hurt. --Лъчезар (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And a decepter made use of it to bring more hoax as if the deception is well sourced. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, Shuneiko's book is probably the best one on the subject in the USSR, and probably worldwide. (Western books on Apollo lack its scientific details, formulas, graphs, etc.) If you mean that Pokrovsky is a "decepter", he's not such but a honest scientist, from what I've read of him. Don't be so suspicious to him. By the way, I find it strange that you doubt the information from independent sources but don't doubt the official information. We in Bulgaria never believe anything we see or hear or read on TV or radio or newspapers. Because mass-media lie as a rule. Both ours and yours. We've all been lied so much that we can't help but doubt them. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't try to equate government-controlled media with American media. You don't even want to start that discussion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, let's not start this discussion. Just to note that our media aren't government-controlled but as yours, aren't free. "The freedom of the press belongs to those who own one" (A.J. Leibling). For more real information about the status here, please read this material. The same site contains good examples on how media lie. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I must add that I do not believe in the media, but I can judge by my own knowledge from a wide selection of academic material to understand how the paper written by Pokrovsky is not reliable to any sense. The method is vague, the reasoning is illogical and the evidences, if any, are scant. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  06:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I respect your opinion. But others may have a different one. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And I must remind you, per WP:PSTS, the paper published by him is primary source, and you need actual reliable secondary sources(reliable meaning something not from a forum, a blog and is from a reputable published authortive in the field, say, an scientific journal or another published paper quoting that specific paper) mentioning the paper(whether it is supporting it or debunking it) to include it in wikipedia. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 08:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What if the source mentioning him is not scientific? --Лъчезар (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then we follow the source and state he is not scientific. Like all other fringe theorist's entries, they have a lot of sources claiming them to be not scientific.  We quote the source, usually summarizing what the fringe theorist said and their points, then the parts about why they are not scientific.  If we have other reliable sources claiming them to be scientific(which usually there are none, since then they will not be fringe theorists), we include them as well, in which this serves perfectly what the WP:NPOV states. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  01:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, then be sure that I won't add such a source. It had better be a scientific one then. By the way, would you publish a paper with an anti-thesis to his thesis? :) --Лъчезар (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Even though I studied in a similar field(spacecraft design), I am more familiar with the actual spacecraft and not the launch vehicle. And I do not want to publish anything that is against a language I am not familiar with.  And to tell the truth, most people specialized in the field will not want to bother themselves to publish something to debunk a fringe theory that is very non scientific when most people can tell it is not.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  16:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's great you studied spacecraft design. Actually, a spacecraft does have most of launch rocket's elements, including engines. Interestingly though, the language wasn't an obstacle for you to determine that his work is non-scientific. Finally, one can speak for oneself but can't know what other people think. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is simple enough to use a few translators and learn a few words to understand one paper, but it will take way more time if I need to write something to debunk it. I would have to quote a lot of sentences from it and list different reasons of why it did not account for scientific facts.(like what I have listed above, stating a 24 fps camera do not have enough frames and accuracy in the angle of filming) Then I would have to find a scientific journal that is willing to include such a non-sense paper just for the purpose of stating something not scientific and the worse thing is, the original paper is not wildly distributed, thus debunking it does not help the sales of the scientific journal since there are no demand in the field.  I would say that it is a total waste of time.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  14:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I understand now. Then a paper that confirms his thesis in one or both of his papers may be more likely to appear than a refutation as supporters of his would be much more enthusiastic and thus determined than deniers :) --Лъчезар (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it hits the notability issue again, and I am not going to repeat it. It is the problem of the notability of where the paper is published.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  02:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the paper have to be published in the Air & Space Magazine to be notable? Isn't the "notability threshold" for hoax proponents raised too high to be ever reached? I've known since I started my struggle here that the Wikipedia "neutrality" is an euphemism, a joke. It's not neutral at all, of course, it always sticks to the "official version". The excuse is that the "reliable sources" stick to it, so does Wikipedia. But which sources are considered reliable? Only those who stick to the "official version" :( --Лъчезар (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A reliable source means it is published by a reliable publication, with is well known and authoritative in the field. No, it does not have to be in the Air & Space magazine, it could be Popular Science or Modern Marvels or Mythbusters.  A neutral point of view means that it includes all reliable sources that are not WP:UNDUE, and it would be very obvious that a fringe theory proposed by one person with only 2 paper and no one quoting it is very unlikely to be reliable or due.  Also, if a scientific theory is published, usually they are neutral by themselves, even when addressing opposing views, they will include quotes of the opposing party(if reachable) on similar issues.  On the otherhand, non-reliable sources do not have supporting sources and arguments even for their own points for the most parts.  Like conspiracy theorists will accuse NASA of murdering of important personels but cannot provide actual sources and reasons for doing so. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  07:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop it
You need to stop these unilateral changes. The hoax article is controversial and changes must be discussed first. If you get into an edit war, you'll run the risk of being blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I detest "edit wars". But why can anybody else do changes without prior permission and I'm the only one required to ask for one? I know the answer – because I'm probably the last "hoaxter" out there. Too bad that I have to struggle alone, which means that I'll always be defeated. But this is not a reason to give up. --Лъчезар (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea for you. Why don't you all find a good reason and ask an administrator to block me? I'm obviously the only one causing all of you headache. Once I'm blocked, you'll all live in perfect happiness and peace and enjoy your favourite opinion that Apollo Moon landings occurred. Thus everybody will be happy. I'll find something better to do, and you'll soon forget that I've existed at all. Happy end! --Лъчезар (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Making changes and getting them reverted is pointless. Raise your issues on the talk page where they can be discussed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's pointless too because as you see, almost everything I propose is rejected. Thus the page remains orthodox and locked for any doubt[er]s. --Лъчезар (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Orthodox is what wikipedia is. If you are trying to subvert that I suggest you stop, as if you continue you will be stopped. Verbal chat  14:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revelation, Monsignor. Inquisition, including cyber-inquisition, can only retard progress but never fully stop it. "E pur si muove!" --Лъчезар (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look at WP:NOT, it's nothing to do with me. Stop with the name calling too, please; would you like to be conspiracy theorist nutjob? Or with the pope that ignored Galileo (scientific evidence). Verbal chat  18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not personal, the problem is of Wikipedia as a whole. Who ignores scientific proof (of Stanislav Pokrovsky) in our dispute? --Лъчезар (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That isn't a proof, from your description the methodology is highly flawed. When it's picked up and published by a respected journal, or endorsed by respected scientists, then I'll take notice. That's how science works. You haven't provided an answer to my simple proof that he is wrong; proof by counterexample. Verbal chat  18:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What counterexample? Sorry that I don't remember exactly :( --Лъчезар (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apollo 11, Apollo 12 etc. (excluding 13) Verbal chat  16:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Popov "smashed to smithereens" all Apollo landing "evidence" here several years ago. Note that he places the burden of proof at NASA, and note his arguments why this must be so. You can use the Russian-made on-line translator for machine translation of the page. In my opinion it's better than the Google translator. It does produce understandable text, albeit it sounds strange sometimes. What's most interesting is that there's specific anti-PAN evidence on Apollo 11 and 13. If you're curious, let me know and I'll provide it. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid he did no such thing. It no doubt sounds strange because it is balderdash. Verbal chat  09:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you, I learned one more English word with negative meaning, but nothing more, as the above is just your personal opinion. --Лъчезар (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, wrong again. Sorry. Verbal chat  09:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

US space accomplishments
You can see the US pulling ahead in the early part of the Gemini Program. Some things done by the US that were necessary to go to the Moon:
 * 1) Change orbit
 * 2) Missions at least 8 days long - the minimum time to go to the Moon and back (the longest USSR flight had been 4 days)
 * 3) Rendezvous
 * 4) Docking
 * 5) Develop a rocket capable of going to the Moon, the Saturn V.  The USSR N1 (rocket) blew up. (Saturn V - 13 successes out of 13 launches, N1 - 4 failures out of 4 attempts.)
 * 6) Leave Earth orbit (manned)
 * 7) Enter orbit around the Moon (manned)
 * 8) Develop a vehicle capable of landing on the Moon - Lunar module

Spacewalking was also perfected (yes the USSR had the first one - 10 minutes, but that was all) during the Gemini program, but it isn't really necessary to landing on the Moon. Bubba73 (talk), 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. Not all Saturn V launches were successful. The April 1968 launch of Saturn V was officially recognised as "not a success" by NASA. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There was Pogo on Apollo 6, but it completed the mission. Bubba73 (talk), 12:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know what I'm talking about (after reading Popov, of course :) Please see this document (the "1968 April 4" section) where NASA admits that "Apollo 6, therefore, was officially judged in December as  not a success in accordance with . . . NASA mission objectives." --Лъчезар (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is not encyclopedic at all but 100% propagandist and is rigorously guarded as such
Come on! With the recent argument on whether the article is pseudo-science or not, the denial of all my proposals to add, including the very well-sourced one about Robert Gilruth, and the closely guarding of all my actions during the last 2 days, it's all clear to me that this article is doomed to basically stay "as-is". Not a single gram of "undue weight" to "conspiracy theorists" and "pseudo-scientits" (even with the highest possible scientific degrees) is allowed anymore. Well, if you think that this article can convince any non-PAN ("hoaxter" in your terminology) in the reality of the Apollo Moon landings, then you don't have a slightest sense of reality on how people think. Any article trying to push a point of view (especially an orthodox one as yours) automatically causes a counter-reaction in the reader. It's the Third Law of Newton! The only way you it could be made persuasive is to present both positions and let the reader make his conclusion himself. Something that many of Wikipedia's articles do. But not this one! Well, Gentlemen, it's August and you should be on vacation this month. I release you. Go out and enjoy summer time! I won't cause you more trouble here anymore. Why waste my time when the result is not even zero but even below zero?! Obviously Wikipedia is not the media that can contribute to opening people's eyes in this case. Well, despite the mighty presence of it in all Google's search and mighty impact that Wikipedia has on people's minds, it's still not the only one. As a Bulgarian song says, "Боряно, Борянке, сал ти ли си мома, сал ти ли си мома, сал ти ли знаеш да пееш?" ("are you the only maiden, is it only you who can sing?"). There are other means to open people's eyes, and I'll surely use them as much as I can. Now you can reply that I don't know what Wikipedia is, that my goals are different than its, and this may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter. To end, do you know what's the worst thing of all? It's that when the "mainstream" sources start to reveal the truth about "Apollo", you will all change your positions to 180 degrees according to the new "wind of change", and will suddenly forget what you've claimed the day before. Then, it will perhaps be time for me to come back here and defend the poor NASA from you. Until then (probably next year), goodbye and as I said, forget me and enjoy the summer, I won't bother you again – a good reason to rejoyce, isn't it? ;-G --Лъчезар (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(Please don't comment this here – it's been commented enough there but if you want to add yet another comment there, you can still do it, of course.)