Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on April 30, 2003, 02:07:24 PM
-
From another thread, and the link therein. I think we've got enough smart guys on this board to debunk or fortify some of these points. Take a shot at it.
9 SPACE ODDITIES:
1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?
8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
My reply:
1- The golfball was not sliced. A slice produces a curved flight path. One can hit a golfball poorly, and cause it to go far right or left. Someone not knowing golf all that well could easily use the word slice when it;s not appropriate.
2-IIRC that camera was remote contolled, either by mission control, or the astronauts
3-That camera was mounted on the LEM and activated remotely.
4-???
5-???
6- Not sure which photo they speak of.
7- The flag is not fluttering. It was supported by a metal rod from the top.
8: Stars are very difficult to see in the city due to city lights. The moons surface is highly refective of light, therby making stars nearly invisible.
9-???
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
From another thread, and the link therein. I think we've got enough smart guys on this board to debunk or fortify some of these points. Take a shot at it.
all this stuff has been debunked before but there are even a core group of even americans who think the stuff was faked.
Instead of wasting time with those little non points that have been called evidence, lets just explain the evidence of hundreds
of pounds of moon rock that geologists all over the globe have studied for 30 years?
Hehe.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
Here's my thinking, but you should be warned that I didn't do well in rocket science!
4. Who said the pressure inside the suit was greater than inside a football? In zero atmosphereic pressure, all you need is a little pressure to allow the air to flow into the lungs when the diaphragm creates a suction into the lungs.
5. Let;s see, dark side, bright side. Do you really think that some sort of man made flare would have been visibile on earth from the bright side of the moon where the moon missions landed? And besides, that would just get the environmentalist wackos pissed for contaminating the moon.
9. 17 Tons on Earth. Moon has 1/6th gravity so it weighs 5/6 less. Ever see a heavy truck drive on hard pan and not leave a mark? Same principal. The footprints of the astromaunts are clearly very shallow as the surface was described as powder on hard pan. The powder was not very deep, hence no penetration. As for the weight of the lander, we don't know how deep it sunk because the landers were left there, covering over what they landed on. As for the crater effect, the engine burn was not an explostion but a steady blast of high pressure exhaust which, in the footage of the landing, clearly shows powdery substance being blown by the exhaust. As for scorching, as evidence that a rocket was used, that implies very inefficient burning of carbon based fuel in an oxygen atmosphere. The smoke comes as much from moisuter in the atmosphere. There is no oxygen or moisture in the atmosphere on the moon and the fuel burning was much more efficient and only took place inside the combustion chamber of the rocket motor. It was more like very high focues pressure than a rocket flame.
Well, those are my guesses.
-
I'll do my best to shed some light on the points you left unanswered:
Originally posted by muckmaw
4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
Actually the pressure is not that high. Astronauts have to breath 100% pure oxygen (dry oxygen) for up to 4 hours to get rid of the Nitrogen in their bloodstream to avoid getting bends due to nitrogen bubbles. Alternatively, on shuttle missions where several EVAs are programmed, the atmosphere inside the orbiter is lowered to 2/3 the normal pressure so that the denitrogenisation procedure is shorter (1 hour).
If an astronaut starts getting hipobaric sickness symptoms, the suit can inflate to become an hyperbaric chamber until he gets back on the orbiter (or LEM in this case).
5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
Actually, they did. They placed some reflectors that even today are used to effectively measure the distance between the moon and the earth. I know those can't be seen with the naked eye, but you can check at the observatories doing those measurements and you'll realize those couldn't be made without someone placing those reflectors on the moon. There are also pictures of astronauts placing them there.
9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
Good one. Since the gravity on the surface of the moon isn't that of the earth, the thrust required to slow the descent of the LEM wasn't as much as some people would think. There was indeed a crater, and a lot of dust was blown by the booster... but that also means that the LEM didn't sink that much on the surface because, at that point, much of the dust underneath it was in suspension.
Later on, that dust settled around the LEM, and thus the footsteps of the astronauts around the lander were clearly visible. You have to realize that there was a time lapse between the actual touchdown and the moment when Armstrong went down the ladder. More than enough for the dust to settle again.
That's about it. Feel free to add/correct.
Daniel
-
9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
[/b]
Um, who made these comments?
Basic physics tells us that weight is relative. 17 tons... on earth they say?
Mass is constant. What weighs 17 tons on earth will weigh less on earth's moon. If their argument is based on "it weighed 17 tons" then the argument is bunk to begin with.
Based on that alone, this author is retarded.
-
Regarding the suit air pressure. While a football is relatively pressurized at slightly less (11-13 psi) than what would be sea level air pressure in space, the suit would not need this level of pressurization as someone mentioned.
However, even if it were pressurized to say 14 psi, the flexibility of the outer material is relevant to the freedom of movement of the astronaut. For example, pump up a tire inner tube to 14 psi. I think you'll find that it is still pretty flexible.
-
this has all been rebuffed.. (looking for that site)
it is a joke that people think this didn't happen.. lol
the shadows, lighting, air pressure, 'wind'.. etc..
has all been explained, and rightly so. They guy who really got this 'conspiracy' thing going was in high school and admitted he didn't know squat about it but was just basing his idea (that the landings were fake) on the pictures.
still looking for the site...
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?
The flag is obviously rigged with metal rods that go into the pole so it doesn just sag and wrap around the pole. It is fluttering simply because of the ground vibrating when the astronauts move around the flag. I am looking at a picture of 2 astronauts plantinga flag and I can't spot any irregularities.
-
Perk the Lander!!!
:D
-
Finally found a reference for suit pressure. Apollo suits were pressurized to 3.75 psi, far below that of a football's 11-13 psi. Proof that the conspiracy theorist didn't do his homework.
http://strangeblue.iwarp.com/sharp2000.html
-
hmmm, it seems like the Chinese are gonna be the 1st nation to land on the moon if these theories are correct.
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
hmmm, it seems like the Chinese are gonna be the 1st nation to land on the moon if these theories are correct.
hmm-if the Russians didn't manage to land on the moon, the Chinse won't either, cause they're using Russin technlogy for their space program :)
-
LOL
The soviets didnt make it to the moon because of the propulsion problems on their N-1 Rocket but they have the functional lunar lander.
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
LOL
The soviets didnt make it to the moon because of the propulsion problems on their N-1 Rocket but they have the functional lunar lander.
Correction ... they have an untested "functional lunar lander." ;)
-
anybody that thinks the moonlandings were faked needs to be taken out into the street and beating.
-
(http://www.angelfire.com/ak4/Andy/And28.jpg)
Andy Kaufman of course!
-
2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
A more interesting phenomenon is apparent in the footage of the lift off. All the debris follows ballistic trajectories... very difficult to fake in 1970, without one hell of a big vacuum chamber.
Inside an atmosphere, debris would follow turbulent fluid flow paths, not the simple trajectories witnessed in the film. I have yet to see anyone's explanation on how they could have faked that.
It always breaks the illusion for me when I watch some sci fi movie and they show turbulant flow patterns in explosions into a vacuum. I think they should look different from the way George Lucas shows them.
-
Was thinking the same thing about the "turbulent air flow". Depending on how high the dust from the lander was blown, it would have taken no longer than 15 seconds for it to settle completely. Especially with no atmosphere to keep it "floating".
MiniD
-
These guys are the same as the 911 CIA/PNAC conspiracy degenrates - when you get to the bottom of it they simply hate America!
-
no thats not it grunz. they are people that are just nuts.
-
I always thought that the conspiracy theory was that only the first landing was faked. This to meet JFKs challenge. The yanks went there afterwards and collected their rocks and took their real pictures.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I always thought that the conspiracy theory was that only the first landing was faked. This to meet JFKs challenge. The yanks went there afterwards and collected their rocks and took their real pictures.
No... that doesn't work at all. Maybe it just makes it an easier pill to swallow?
This scenario would be the easiest of all to prove or disprove. You'd simply have to compare footage taken from the "faked" landing wiht footage taken from the "real" landing. Having never been there before, there is little to no chance of them getting everything (or even anything) right.
MiniD
-
and I have yet to hear a good explanation on the shadows in that first picture btw...You skipped that one muckmaw.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No... that doesn't work at all. Maybe it just makes it an easier pill to swallow?
This scenario would be the easiest of all to prove or disprove. You'd simply have to compare footage taken from the "faked" landing wiht footage taken from the "real" landing. Having never been there before, there is little to no chance of them getting everything (or even anything) right.
MiniD
I so dont want to get into this, but that is the original conspiracy theory as I have heard it, and there are a couple of unexplainables with that first lunar landing.
-
I know you don't want to get into it, because you'd get your bellybutton kicked on this one.
There is absolutely no way they could fake the first lunar landing and have all the real ones look exactly the same. Absolutely ZERO.
MiniD
-
There is also the issue of radiation shielding on the vehicles used in all parts of the mission.
The modern Shuttle doesn't leave Earth's amosphere completely and does get some protection from it. The Apollo capsules didn't have the kind of shielding the shuttles have and neither did the astronaut suits and are supposed to have survived the unprotected space between the moon and the Earth.
There is also some photographic evidence that is anomolous, such as the the identical rock formations visible on two separate landings which supposedly occurred in entirely different locations.
It's hard to believe it was faked though. There were so many people involved that would be quite a feat, nevermind keeping it from the Russians.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
There is also the issue of radiation shielding on the vehicles used in all parts of the mission.
The modern Shuttle doesn't leave Earth's amosphere completely and does get some protection from it. The Apollo capsules didn't have the kind of shielding the shuttles have and neither did the astronaut suits and are supposed to have survived the unprotected space between the moon and the Earth.
It is the magnetic feild of the earth that affords us solar radiation protection, and Apollo missions were conducted at a rather low solar activity cycle. As the shuttle was designed for low earth orbit missions only, it has virtually no radiation sheilding. The recent tether experiments to generate electricity passed a wire tether through the earth's magnetic feild to create a current. The Shuttle does not venture past the 'magnetosphere'
James Mitchner's (sp?) novel 'Space' deals with a solar flare radiation exposure accident during an Apollo mission.
While the lander provided little if any protection, (the thickness of the LEM pressure hull was on the order of foil) the ablative reentry sheild of the command module would have provided some protection for a 2 or 3 day earth - moon transit.
Some thoughts from Mars mission planners speak of radiation 'bunkers' where the crew could hide out during solar flare activity for a multiple month transit to Mars. Turns out water is one of the better sheilding materials, and crews would be sheltered in the shadow of water tanks. As Mars has no (or at most a very small) magnetic feild, radiaition sheilding on the surface is of critical importance throughout a multi year mission.
-
BTW... a pretty good site that answers the questions posted here:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#mt_anim
-
Hortlund, if the Russians could have proved the '69 moon landing was faked don't you think they would have been all over it? I'm fairly certain they had the means to verify that a spacecraft went to the moon, landed, and returned.
If the whole thing had been unmanned there would have been some evidence of remote control signals being sent to the craft. If the mission had been unmanned and the whole trip computer controlled, well, that's almost as remarkable as a manned mission, considering the state of computers in '69.
Bottom line, Russians offered little opposition to the proclaimed event and no evidence.
-
Hortland-
I only answered the questions I could offer explanations to with a rudimentary knowledge of science.
I do not have the photo in front of me to examine it.
As for the problem radiation, that's a question for a scientist, not me.
I do know a good portion of the LEM was made of a metallic substance, about as think as 3 sheets of aluminum foil.
We actually have a real LEM at the Cradle of Aviation museum where I volunteer. It was slated to go up, but the program was cancelled.
Either way, it was built by Grumman, and I believe it is the only real LEM on earth. (The rest, well, you know where they are).
We've got rolls of that foil laying around the museum. Pretty amazing stuff.
-
"2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming? "
I'm sold.
Who did it?
-
*sigh* against my better judgement...
(http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/fake3.jpg)
Explain that lightsource. (and no, it's too big to be the sun)
-
Hortlund, without doing any research, how about the Earth or maybe the lander?
Perhaps this will end any doubt in any reasonable person's mind in a couple of years:
http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/enterp/missions/selene/cont.html
-
Nope and nope. The earth is a horribly bad lightsource when you are on the moon. I dont have the lux-numbers in front of me right now, but for some reason (I'm guessing atmosphere) the earth doesnt really reflect light that well. The moon on the other hand is exceptional, apparently there is alot of glass (or glass-like stuff) in the lunar dust.
It is not the lander either. It is a too bright lightsource for that.
-
Hotland-
WHat you are seeing there IS the lander reflecting sunlight.
Remember, the bulk of the LEM was coated in highly refelctive foil.
Even the shape is the same as that of the lander.
-
No muckmaw, you are wrong. First, the light source is above the astronaut. Second, if the lander was that reflective, any image where the lander is present and in sunlight would result in a similar lightsource.
In a picture such as this
(http:// [url]http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa7.gif[/url])
you would not be able to look at the lander because it would be like looking at someone holding a mirror reflecting the sun.
-
How can the lander be reflecting sunlight? The lander has to be in front and to the right of the 'naut given the shadow. If that is the case the orignal light source must also be in the hemisphere where the 'naut is for the light to hit the the lander and reflect off the helmet. If that is the case, then there should be a second shadow cast by the original source. I don't see that second shadow.
It looks like there is a single light source directly hitting the helmet, with nothing in between to 'bounce' off- i.e. lighting, which they didn't have with them.
Interesting photo either way.
-
It's probably the sun combined with poor image quality.
Get out the tinfoil hats.
ra
-
I don't know guys.
It really looks like the lander reflecting sunlight to me.
It is much taller than the astronaut, so it wouls appear above the astronaut.
I'm looking at the angles, and it looks like it could be the lander.
If we sat down in person, and could point at the photos, I think we would be able to understand each other. This is tough to do via text.
-
(http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/fake19_small.jpg)
The light source is still too close/big to be the sun. How is the image quality ra?
This one is from Apollo 14 btw, the previous one was 16.
-
In 1960 set two projects into motion:
Project 1: Develop a program to land a man on the moon and do it by the end of the decade.
Project 2: Develop a program to convince the world, for at least 40 years after the fact, that we had a successfull lunar landing program *without actually landing anybody on the moon*.
Result:
Project 1: Pure engineering and science from smart germans - success.
Project 2: Add subterfuge, social engineering, coverups, multiple complex hollywood-style productions, coming up with convincing fictional science - then maintaining the subterfuge for 40 years.
Bound to be a collosal failure that goes massively over budget and blows up in everyones face.
Remember, we couldn't even pull off the Bay of Pigs in that era. Or maybe the argument is that the Bay of Pigs was a disaster because in 1961 all of our best covert strategists and ops folks were being sucked up by the fake moon landing project. That's it: the Bay of Pigs is yet more proof that the moon landing was faked...
-
Wow hortlund is really having a special week!
First he doubts milosevic was capable of genocide in kosovo..
And now he questions the moon landings...
Whats next Hortlund, is this round earth nonsense starting to bug ya too? :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Wow hortlund is really having a special week!
First he doubts milosevic was capable of genocide in kosovo..
And now he questions the moon landings...
Whats next Hortlund, is this round earth nonsense starting to bug ya too? :D
And amazingly, in both threads you felt the need to say something without knowing what you talked about.
Can you explain the lightsource in the picture?
Can you see into the future, or do you have the ability to know what would have happened if history was changed?
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Um, who made these comments?
Basic physics tells us that weight is relative. 17 tons... on earth they say?
Mass is constant. What weighs 17 tons on earth will weigh less on earth's moon. If their argument is based on "it weighed 17 tons" then the argument is bunk to begin with.
Based on that alone, this author is retarded. [/B]
Weight and mass are not the same.
-
(http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/fake-helmet.jpg)
-
The moon landing never took place thats just plane redikulas.
-
if you ask me the light sorurces in these photos look like the sun look at the second one! look at the visor (they were shiny too / reflective) but when looking at the light source there it looks the same to me as looking at the sun reflection in a car window or anything reflective like that!
but i dont know Sh@t so it just my 2cents
-
Ran it through my image analyzer and found conclusive proof that the pic was taken on the moon.
(http://www.inettek.com/stuff/moon.jpg)
-
Thats the potato peeling sun... geeze... get over it.
:rolleyes:
-
Yes only Steve Hortlund, minor swedish judge can comment on things..... And the idea that i dont know that butcher milosevic
is insulting - again only swedish judges know him.
Why do you want to belive the moon landings are fake?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
(http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/fake19_small.jpg)
The light source is still too close/big to be the sun. How is the image quality ra?
This one is from Apollo 14 btw, the previous one was 16.
By what standard is it too big to be the sun? How big should it be?
-
To know how large or disperesed a reflection of the sun would be on the visor you'd need to know the reflective characteristics of the visor. Shape, surface type (both outer and inner), and thickness are all factors. I know little about them as I suspect does anyone else here.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
To know how large or disperesed a reflection of the sun would be on the visor you'd need to know the reflective characteristics of the visor. Shape, surface type (both outer and inner), and thickness are all factors. I know little about them as I suspect does anyone else here.
Hortlund knows, he is a swedish judge - he know all and we know nothing... :rolleyes:
-
...Again its the potato peeling sun get over it.. geeze us.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes only Steve Hortlund, minor swedish judge can comment on things..... And the idea that i dont know that butcher milosevic
is insulting - again only swedish judges know him.
[/b]
I've never claimed to be able to see into the future, nor have I ever claimed to know the outcome of various "what if history changed in this or that way"-scenarios. You are the one saying you know what would have happened if the US hadnt intervened in Kosovo. I'm the one saying it is impossible to know such things, all you can do is speculate...(that means "guess" in plain english).
Why do you want to belive the moon landings are fake?
Do I believe that the moon landings are fake? You need to brush up on your english skills young one.
-
If we landed men on the moon: I'm impressed and proud not only of my country but of the hundreds of immigrant and international engineers and scientists involved. It is, perhaps, the most amazing technical feat of all time.
If it's a big hoax that was initiated because of the cold war and it's been perpetuated for all these years: I'm really, really impressed and proud of my country for pulling off what is undoubtedly the most amazing technical *and* socialogical feat of all time - all for the cause of democracy. Oh, and screw those german scientists who must've been worthless or else we wouldn't of had to fake it.
Either way it's an awsome accomplishment that could only be achieved by the only true superpower (to date) - the good 'ol USA.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
To know how large or disperesed a reflection of the sun would be on the visor you'd need to know the reflective characteristics of the visor. Shape, surface type (both outer and inner), and thickness are all factors. I know little about them as I suspect does anyone else here.
Check the other picture I posted of the two sun reflections, one from Mercury (I think its mercury) and the other from the moon.
-
And based on past behavior I was more than happy that the USA intervened... It was eaxatly the sort of "speculation" that lead us top war in iraq - based on past behavior of saddam hussein. Both were good calls that helped a lot and were a job well done..
But really hortlund, why does a smart guy like you want to belive the moon landings are fake?
-
"Da Big Yella one is da sun!"
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But really hortlund, why does a smart guy like you want to belive the moon landings are fake?
I dont.
I do want to know what the lightsource is on those pictures though, because it is not the sun.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I dont.
I do want to know what the lightsource is on those pictures though, because it is not the sun.
I find this skirting around the real issue crap to be tiring hortlund. You cant go around saying look look how wrong that sun reflection is in that moon "landing" photograph - and then just turn around and say you arent questioning the truth of the moon landings. Sorry hortlund, i'm not buying that crap. If you dont think the landings were fake why do you think the photo is fake or wrong - the issue is why would nasa make up a fake and flawed moon photo if the landings were indeed real?
-
You can question the lightsource in the photo without quesitoning the moon landing.
It could be any number of sources that would produce the shown effect, none of them necessarily proving the landings were falsified.
Anyone want to talk about the JFK assisination??:D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I find this skirting around the real issue crap to be tiring hortlund. You cant go around saying look look how wrong that sun reflection is in that moon "landing" photograph - and then just turn around and say you arent questioning the truth of the moon landings. Sorry hortlund, i'm not buying that crap. If you dont think the landings were fake why do you think the photo is fake or wrong - the issue is why would nasa make up a fake and flawed moon photo if the landings were indeed real?
Have you ever seen anything you cannot explain Grun?
If yes, did it make you curious or did it make you scared?
If you look back in this thread, you will see alot of people posting out of their a$es. "Its the sun" (even though it is about 50 times too big in the first picture) and then clinging to that opinion of theirs.
JoeSmoe is a good example of someone who doesnt want to think for himself. He is presented with a picture that cant really be explained, and his immideate reaction is denial. So ok, we can conclude that if JoeSmoe is faced with something he cannot explain, he gets scared because (probably) for some reason the concept of critical thinking is too complext for him.
btw...ra displays the same character trait (note how I abstained from using the word flaw). As does several other posters in this thread.
I am of the opinion that there are things that science cannot explain. Those things make me curious. Those very same things scare the cheese out of others. That is all fine and well.
The thing that bugs me is when people like ra, joesmoe and you talk about stuff you really dont know anything about in a way as if it was the one and only truth.
Now, grun, I'm going to say this again. The lightsource on the first picture is not the sun. The reflection of the sun is too big in all the pictures I have posted. Why is that? I dont know. It makes me curious though.
-
Someone once told me that the SR-71 could only be built because we reverse-engineered some alien technology.
Theories like these really piss me off when I think about all the hard work, brilliant ideas, and severe sacrifices that thousands upon thousands of the world's scientists, engineers, and manufacturers that went into achievements such as the Apollo missions. All of their hard work and intelligence is instantly and callously negated whenever someone perpetuates these theories.
WTF is the thought process with someone like that? " I'm not that intelligent... I don't work very hard... I don't understand science very well... surely nobody can be smarter or work harder than me." ????
Take the time to do just a little bit of learning, then give these brilliant and hardworking people the admiration they deserve.
(yes. This is a big subject to me. I was a boy in the 60s and many relatives worked in the space program... hell, almost everyone in the 60s worked on the space program in one way or another)
Edit: Hortlund... do you suggest that every photograph ever taken on a space mission used the same f-stop setting? You look at the sun through an atmosphere which filters out most of the corona, how would you know what it should look like in a vacuum?
-
Just to be perfectly clear and unambigous, you are saying the big yellow bright circle reflected in their visors is not the sun - correct?
In your opinion the rflection is too big - right?
Why do you think its too big? Can you prove to us that it is too big. Otherwise you are just talking like the other guys..
-
The thing that bugs me is when people like ra, joesmoe and you talk about stuff you really dont know anything about in a way as if it was the one and only truth.
If you want to state that the light reflected in a visor is not the sun, you have to support it with fact, and with decent pictures. Until then, you don't know anything about this either. You do not offer an alternate truth, just empty speculation.
Here's another site full of pictures for you to debunk:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_40_5875.html
ra
-
Hortlund, I don't think you can prove it isn't the sun. For one thing, we don't know the angle of the visor relative to the sun. The smaller bright spot of the sun in the clearer pics may have been the result of the increased brightness due to the angle of the sun. If the sun were at more of an oblique angle and the camera farther away then the sun may have created a larger and more uniform light spot and the camera was able to "see" all of it.
-
Its just so much easier to prove it IS the sun's reflection, than that it isnt. The fact that Hortlung stands fanatically by his belief that it ISNT makes this thread 50% funnier :)
I dont see anything wrong with those reflection images. They are clearly the sun.
A reflected lightspot on a convex surface will ALWAYS appear larger because the reflected light is distorted, so the reflection will appear "stretched" around its radius. Have you seen your image in a curved reflection? Remember how larger your head looked?
Its simple and plain optics, Hortlund. Just plain science.
The surface of the visor is coated with gold. Because of the color and reflective properties of gold, the visor will shine more, and this shimmer will cover a wider radius around the reflection.
Its just simple physics, Hortlund. Simple science.
But then again, we are arguing against the guy who thinks evolution and countless other scientific works are just plane REDIKULAS.
-
I now find myself attracted to Animal....that is weird science!
-
I know what the reflection is!!!
It's the camera men of the fake moon set lighting up their crack rock!!!
-SW
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I now find myself attracted to Animal....that is weird science!
TAKE A LOOK AT MY AVATAR.
-
if it is not the sun then it may be a light from the lander. Remember , no air on the moon means no light diffraction, that camera got a full blast of the light illuminating the man.
In any case, who cares? No more lunar missions for decades.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Its simple and plain optics, Hortlund. Just plain science.
LOL yeah it is, now go curve a glass to get that reflection from the sun...because you cant.
Get an education instead of posting out of your as$.
You talk about science, but you dont know the meaning of the word. Sorry, but thanks for trying, you end up in the JoeSmoe-category.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL yeah it is, now go curve a glass to get that reflection from the sun...because you cant.
Get an education instead of posting out of your as$.
The visor is not glass, glass is not covered with gold, I dont have the camera equipment to produce the obvious results, and worst of all, I have no access to space. :(
I think its you who needs an education, which I'm humbly trying to provide for you, ungrateful salamander.
-
(http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/fake3.jpg)
Curv whatever metal or glass you want, cover it with gold, snake oil or your own cheese, I dont care. Take the picture in space, on earht, under water. You will not get a reflection of the sun that size.
-
-
What exposure is the picture taken at, and more importantly, what speed setting.
As that picture shows, the alledged astronaut is in motion...hmmmm, maybe the reflection is bigger because the reflection is blurred by a combination of motion and speed setting.
As more evidence to support this, look at the rest of the picture, the guys entire suit is somewhat blurred to the motion taking place.
Or just maybe that after planning to the smallest level of detail and carrying out the biggest hoax in history, NASA was tripped up by using the lighting man from Ed Wood productions!
And Hortlund has "shone the light" on the truth :)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
(http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/fake3.jpg)
Curv whatever metal or glass you want, cover it with gold, snake oil or your own cheese, I dont care. Take the picture in space, on earht, under water. You will not get a reflection of the sun that size.
Of course you will. Specially taking into consideration that film production equipment used back then was not as sharp as it is now. Have you worked on film reproduction? Bright light sources will affect the final image, there will always be noise. Given you have the proper equipment, if you take a picture of the sun without proper filters, all you will get is a huge white mess. Have you seen old films of a nuclear explosion or a solar eclipse?
This effect will happen on a smaller scale when you take a picture of the sun from a very reflective surface. And because there is no atmosphere where that picture was taken, that reflection will be brighter, thus, more noise in the final image.
In fact, I'm surprised the visor is visible at all. Props to whoever designed the whole image production equipment NASA used.
Look at this, Hortlund:
Originally posted by Mini D
I know you don't want to get into it, because you'd get your bellybutton kicked on this one.
MiniD
You should have read what this smarty man wrote.
Anyways, Hortlund, want me to fetch you some documents on the chemistry involved in film processing? I'm nice like that, always trying to help those who need to be educated, instead of just using insults and leaving you ignoroant.
-
Lets use RIPSNORT head as an example of light reflecting off a curved surface! (rip polish it up go out in the sun and take sum pixs for us to determine the Glare /reflection factor of the SUN off the curved surface)
:D
-
Off the top of my head, I can think of several reasons that the reflections of the sun or lander in an image of an Apollo astronaut are larger than they "should" be. Of course, since they are pictures of the actual event, they are exactly *as* they should be, but in any case:
1. Reflections in a curved surface vary in size depending on their apparent position on the surface. Look at the flag in the picture. Does the reflection prove that the flag is not a rectangle? This holds true for all non-point sources. In this context, the sun and its attendant corona are definately not a point source.
2. On video stills (which at least one of the posted pictures are), "bloom" of a bright object (such as a reflection of the sun) will make the object appear larger on the video than reality. This would be especially true of stills from Apollo 14, which used a vidicon camera. If you view the EVA TV from Apollo 14, you will see plenty of reflections that bloom much larger than they would appear to a person there. On Apollo 15 and later missions, the TV camera used a silicon sensor which was much less susceptable to bloom (or saturation, as it should be called for a non vidicon imaging system.)
3. The Apollo visor is made of Lexan. The material is incredibly hard, yet easily scratched. The lunar environment is not kind to equipment, since everything is coated with dust. The area that is reflecting the sun in the Gemini/Apollo comparison picture posted is an area of the visor that is routinely scratched by the use of a sun shade that is slid over the visor. You can see the sun shade partially deployed in one of the other posted pictures. The scratched surface of the lexan will act to diffuse the reflection of a bright object (making it appear larger and out of focus.)
To people who pore over these pictures and look for "evidence", I say send me a large enough set of pictures (100 or so) from any event in their own lives, and I will be able to find "proof" that the event never took place.
-
When I heard Fox was presenting a show that showed "proof" that the moon landing hadnt occured I ROFLMAO.
Especially about the flag. How can they not know the flag was hanging from a metal bar?
As for the reflection, its either the sun or a space ship from the original Star Trek series. The one with all the light bulbs ;)
-
Falstaff-
If I send you my weddding album, can you prove I never got married so I can F*** my secretary?
Thanks in advance...
Oh, I need your address!
-
Originally posted by Imp
As for the reflection, its either the sun or a space ship from the original Star Trek series. The one with all the light bulbs ;)
Actually its a lightning for God about to smite the infidels who dared venture the boundaries he warned "Here be Dragons"
-
Muckmaw - I thought of that right after I hit submit. I'm working on my own album right now, but you're next in line.
-
Originally posted by Falstaff
Muckmaw - I thought of that right after I hit submit. I'm working on my own album right now, but you're next in line.
*Muck runs out of the office to buy condoms and Tequila*
:D :D :D :D
Who's says there's no such thing as life after death!
-
I already have some progress to report. The "groom" in the photos is much thinner than I am (imposter/clone?) It looks like the event was very costly to fake -- you would have thought that they would have caught a detail like this!
-
Anyone notice how the moon appears 3-4 times larger when it rises or sets then it does at its apex? Same with the Sun? I suspect that similar phenomena could explain the size of the reflection on the space man's visor on the moon. You can tell by the length of his shadow that the sun is definitely very close to the horizon. The reflection should not be the LEM since it is coming from the same general direction as the sun, and it would take a very odd angle to reflect an image off the LEM onto the astronaut. It would more likely shade the astronaut than reflect something onto him.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Of course you will. Specially taking into consideration that film production equipment used back then was not as sharp as it is now. Have you worked on film reproduction? Bright light sources will affect the final image, there will always be noise. Given you have the proper equipment, if you take a picture of the sun without proper filters, all you will get is a huge white mess. Have you seen old films of a nuclear explosion or a solar eclipse?
This effect will happen on a smaller scale when you take a picture of the sun from a very reflective surface. And because there is no atmosphere where that picture was taken, that reflection will be brighter, thus, more noise in the final image.
The sun takes up about 1/6-1/4 of the visor. The reflection is located high-center. The picture is from Apollo 16. The visor is a rounded reflective surface without any irregularities.
True depending on angle objects will become distorted. It is however impossible to have an object roughly the size of a quarter (normal-size sun) grow in size to become a tennisball-sized blob. You go out and play around with lightsources and rounded surfaces animal, and tell me how many pictures you can snap where the lightsource grows in size in all directions. i e, not just a small rounded lightsource being stretched out to become a long line. What you'd want to create is a small rounded lightsource that grows in size in all directions until it is 10-20 times larger than it should. Good luck.
-
Anyone notice how the moon appears 3-4 times larger when it rises or sets then it does at its apex? Same with the Sun? I suspect that similar phenomena could explain the size of the reflection on the space man's visor on the moon.
umm.. that's due to atmosphere acting as a lens.. doesn't work when there's no air :)
it's simply the curvature of the visor .. that coupled with the lack of atmoshphere that means less diffusion
-
Originally posted by tracerx
Anyone notice how the moon appears 3-4 times larger when it rises or sets then it does at its apex? Same with the Sun? I suspect that similar phenomena could explain the size of the reflection on the space man's visor on the moon. You can tell by the length of his shadow that the sun is definitely very close to the horizon. The reflection should not be the LEM since it is coming from the same general direction as the sun, and it would take a very odd angle to reflect an image off the LEM onto the astronaut. It would more likely shade the astronaut than reflect something onto him.
no, the moon is larger when it rises due to the angle you're viewing it through the atmosphere. The atmosphere kinda acts as a magnifying glass at the lower angles.
As for the sun reflecting off the visors. AKIron and Falstaff are correct. The angle of the sun reflecting off the visor will cause some difference in the size. The angle of the viewer (camera in this case) from the visor will also cause a difference in size. For a simple test, go outside, find the sun reflecting off an object and observe it from different angles. Some angles won't give you a good reflection of the light, while other angles will flat out blind you. This alone would be cause for differences in the size of the reflection of the lightsource on the visor (that is, the sun's angle to the visor and the angle of the visor in relation to the camera taking the picture.) Combine that with the fact in the "this is the real size of the sun" picture it's a still photo with very little motion and in the "this is too big to be the sun" picture it's a capture from a video feed or a low speed still photo from an object in motion and you've got a very plausible reason for the size differences in the two pictures.
-
(http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/fake-helmet.jpg)
Even this picture you posted as "proof" proves nothing, the size of the reflection is paractically identical in both pictures.
Again I must ask you Hortlund, why do you think NASA would fake a moon picture and sun reflection unless you think the moon landings are fake. Why? And if you dont think the moon landings are fake and you belive NASA went to the moon then why would they fake a photograph or at least not explain their mysterios light source which looks like the sun but really isnt.
You are coming here telling us all how we are uneducted while the only proof and support you have given is saying the sun should be reflected the size of a quarter. How did you arriive at that conclusion? Other sapce pictures - well maybe they are fake too?
You have given absolutely no proof the reflection is too big...
And if you continue calling me or anyone else ignorant and keep dismissing our concersns over your utter lack of proof then I, and prolly others, will take that to mean you concede the argument,
So there Hortlund, plaease give us real proof, real evidence to support your view!
Time to put up or shut up....
-
Originally posted by Nifty
no, the moon is larger when it rises due to the angle you're viewing it through the atmosphere. The atmosphere kinda acts as a magnifying glass at the lower angles.
.
If you take your hand and make a tunnel to look thro about the size of a dime and look at the moon when its being magnified by the atmosphere you can see it at its normal size. The look back at it normal and its doubled in size again :D
I lil trick I showed my kids.
.
-
Falstaff is correct. The image was taken with a primitive video camera, and those old tubes had trouble with intense lights.
"TV or Vidicon camera:
The operating principle of the vidicon camera is based upon the image pick-up tube often found in television cameras.
Image focused onto a photo-conductive target.
Target scanned line by line horizontally by an electron beam
Electric current produces as the beam passes over target.
Current proportional to the intensity of light at each point.
Tap current to give a video signal
Limited resolution: finite number of scan lines (about 625) and frame rate (30 or 60 frames per second)
Unwanted persistence between one frame and the next
Non-linear video output with respect to light intensity.
Suffer from blooming of the image around very bright light spots, geometrical distortion of the image across the photoconductor and sensitivity to environmental conditions."
That reflection is the sun, distorted by the poor response of the vacuum tube used on the camera to intense light. No conspiracy traces here ;).
-
are you retarded hortland? or is it possible that you make idiotic asumptions on things you have no clue about(im guilty on that sometimes as well).
Go take a basic photography lesson.
-
What's funny to me is the way old hortlund will cling to any one sliver of hope to continue instigating people while completely forgetting the extremely stupid comments he made prior to that.
What happend to the "only the first one was faked" argument hortlund? Come now... run out of evidence for that one? Or did you finally read up on the theory a little bit and find the conspiracy theory people were pulling photos from all of the landings to prove their point?
That kinda blows the whole "How do you explain moon-rocks" "explanation" you offered up.
Oh well... this isn't really about you being right, this is about you being stupid and moving on to something else to be stupid about.
MiniD
-
The sun and the moon aren't larger on the horizon than at apex. It's a perceptual illusion (not optical). Take a picture and compare them, you'll see they are the same size.
-
Pretty dumb of those americans to not scale thier spot light after going to all that trouble.
Is there some facet involved in the technology of going to the moon that makes people believe its impossible?
-
well i used to think it may have been faked.
but there are so many people involved in a lunar mission i'm sure someone would have said something by now.
i wish they would cos i'm getting fed up with roswell repeatedly rearing its head.
one picture i did see was one of an astronaut where those black crosses you see on the pics, one went behind his helmet.
if those crosses are on the lens then that cant happen can it?
who knows.
voyager was a fake because i've been using it in my garden to grow roses in for the last 20 years:(
-
Hortlund the reflection in the visor is the face of Odin .
-
Hey hortlund.. you
Are dilusional. Its quite sad actually. I hear that you are a "Judge" of sorts?.. If that is the case, then you are someone who is supposed to have the abilty of perception, and understanding.
It is clear that you have not the slightest Idea of what you are seeing/perceieving. (this is truley sad).
Hey hortlund,.. psssst. (we've been to the moon.. AND back)..
and psssst (that very VERY bright light)... IS THE potato peelinG sun you dumboscar..
I bet you think that People really don't go into orbit either.,. :rolleyes:
-
Let's put it this way: there's plenty of Apollo hardware left over-including 2 Saturn V rockets. Somebody prove that the moon landing COULDN'T have been accomplished with that hardware. If you can't prove that-there is no motiv for faking the whole thing, since they had the possiblity to do it fo'real.
-
I've read the autobiographies of Mike Collins,Gene Cernan,Buzz Aldrin, Charlie Duke, the biography of Alan Shepard and a bunch of other books. They all seemed very personal and real. I don't believe those people could've lied or kept silent about such an imporatnt event being a fraud. And besides the astronauts, there are mission controllers, engineers and so on. You are talking about a HUGE number of people. Has any CONCLUSIVE evidence appeared that the landing was faked????? NO!
p.s. Hortlund, what is your problem?
-
OTOH, the Soviets could have faked a Moon landing and gotten away with it for decades, at least within their country.:)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Check the other picture I posted of the two sun reflections, one from Mercury (I think its mercury) and the other from the moon.
No EVA's in project Mercury.
Ed White during Gemini was the first American to venture outside.
-
The funniest thing about this whole discussion is the fact that two absolutely total eurotrash tards are arguing that it did not happen, yet they have no proof to substatiate their argument. Makes you wonder why their nations are the way they are....
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
The funniest thing about this whole discussion is the fact that two absolutely total eurotrash tards are arguing that it did not happen, yet they have no proof to substatiate their argument. Makes you wonder why their nations are the way they are....
:rolleyes:
I think it's funnier that you American tards are actually responding to their allegations.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
What happend to the "only the first one was faked" argument hortlund? Come now... run out of evidence for that one?
[/b]
Have I ever tried to prove that? Reading comprehension is a good thing D, you should try to brush up on your ability in that area.
Or did you finally read up on the theory a little bit and find the conspiracy theory people were pulling photos from all of the landings to prove their point?
[/b]
Personally, I think the van Allen belt rad-levels is a more productive way of arguing...but thats just me.
That kinda blows the whole "How do you explain moon-rocks" "explanation" you offered up.
[/b]
Did I offer an explanation or did I quote a conspiracy theory?
-
Originally posted by JoeSmoe
I hear that you are a "Judge" of sorts?.. If that is the case, then you are someone who is supposed to have the abilty of perception, and understanding.
As I said Joe, critical thinking is a good thing.
From your posts in this thread so far, you have yet to show evidence that you are capable of coherent thought, not to mention independent thinking.
-
Wow hortlund. This is very special. Are you going to stop trying to stir the **** and actually try to sound intellectual now?
Its a bit late.
I know you'd like to think you really didn't try to prove anything. After all, you didn't "prove" anything... only spewed it. But, you did bring it up as if it were valid. Reading comprehension isn't the problem hortlund. It was the presentation.
You haven't presented a single coherent thought in this thread, yet you now try to come off as intellectual. Citing someone else's point(s) may be the only way for you to try to sound smart, so maybe you should stick to it. You haven't demonstrated the capacity to show anything original or insightfull as far as intelluality goes.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
But, you did bring it up as if it were valid. Reading comprehension isn't the problem hortlund. It was the presentation.
[/b]
And since everyone knows that that is all about perception, you admit that the fault is in your own head?
You haven't presented a single coherent thought in this thread, yet you now try to come off as intellectual.
Citing someone else's point(s) may be the only way for you to try to sound smart, so maybe you should stick to it. You haven't demonstrated the capacity to show anything original or insightfull as far as intelluality goes.
*shrugs* I'm not trying to come off as anything. I know my own abilities, and I see little need to try to prove myself on an internet BB. I leave that to tards like you.
-
Ah.. gotcha hortlund. I guess that explains your.. what... 20 posts in this thread?
Continue to downplay all of the stupid things you've said in this thread hortlund. And continue to act as if saying:
" As I said Joe, critical thinking is a good thing.
From your posts in this thread so far, you have yet to show evidence that you are capable of coherent thought, not to mention independent thinking."
doesn't necessarily mean you are trying to "come off as anything".
You can't just shut idiocy off hortlund. The text is still there.
MiniD
-
Well hortlund if you are not out to prove your superior intelligence that should give you plenty of time to prove the "sun" reflections are too large...
And yea go ahead and insult me and the others again - that will prove the reflection size thing you have been arguing..
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Ah.. gotcha hortlund. I guess that explains your.. what... 20 posts in this thread?
[/b]
Actually I thought I had explained my position in this thread. I do not doubt the moonlandings, Ive never said I did. I have seen something that I do not understand and I have no explanation for. This is what I wrote to Grun, it should sum up my position nicely.
Have you ever seen anything you cannot explain Grun?
If yes, did it make you curious or did it make you scared?
If you look back in this thread, you will see alot of people posting out of their a$es. "Its the sun" (even though it is about 50 times too big in the first picture) and then clinging to that opinion of theirs.
JoeSmoe is a good example of someone who doesnt want to think for himself. He is presented with a picture that cant really be explained, and his immideate reaction is denial. So ok, we can conclude that if JoeSmoe is faced with something he cannot explain, he gets scared because (probably) for some reason the concept of critical thinking is too complext for him.
btw...ra displays the same character trait (note how I abstained from using the word flaw). As does several other posters in this thread.
I am of the opinion that there are things that science cannot explain. Those things make me curious. Those very same things scare the cheese out of others. That is all fine and well.
The thing that bugs me is when people like ra, joesmoe and you talk about stuff you really dont know anything about in a way as if it was the one and only truth.
Now, grun, I'm going to say this again. The lightsource on the first picture is not the sun. The reflection of the sun is too big in all the pictures I have posted. Why is that? I dont know. It makes me curious though.
Now alot of people have claimed that the reflection in the visor is indeed the sun and they have tried to explain how the reflection could be 10-20 times larger than it should be. Personally I doubt their explanations, for several reasons.
Continue to downplay all of the stupid things you've said in this thread hortlund. And continue to act as if saying:
" As I said Joe, critical thinking is a good thing.
From your posts in this thread so far, you have yet to show evidence that you are capable of coherent thought, not to mention independent thinking."
doesn't necessarily mean you are trying to "come off as anything".
You can't just shut idiocy off hortlund. The text is still there.
Well, my personal opinion is that I havent said anything stupid in this thread at all. On the other hand, I suspect both you and JoeSmoe feels you havent said anything stupid either. *shrugs* maybe we are all right, maybe we are all wrong. Who cares? I do know that personally I think Joe is an idiot.
As for yourself, you are falling back into the cheerleader position you know oh-so-well from this board and others...
I see something I find strange, to me it is a mystery and it makes me curious, people offer explanations, but I question these explanations given. You jump in and call me stupid and an idiot. That puts you in the same category as JoeSmoe, you just use more and more complicated words to say the same thing as he does.
Are you still doing drugs btw?
-
Why dont you prove it is 10-20 times bigger, so far you are just saying so....
-
Umm... people offer up explanations, and you question them.
OK... maybe I just misread what you posted in this thread:
"Explain that lightsource. (and no, it's too big to be the sun)"
No... that wasn't really you saying that. You were just questioning... well... someone's... wait... no... quoting... no... not quoting.
You dismissed the obvious (and correct) answer on your first post. You dismissed it later in other posts. That is simply idiocy. Sorry you feel it is well thought out and that makes it brilliant. But nobody ever said idiots didn't think... just that they did it badly.
You also said:
"I always thought that the conspiracy theory was that only the first landing was faked. This to meet JFKs challenge. The yanks went there afterwards and collected their rocks and took their real pictures"
"I so dont want to get into this, but that is the original conspiracy theory as I have heard it, and there are a couple of unexplainables with that first lunar landing."
Though... you don't really know for sure. You just made the second statement to validate the first. Do you know that the conspiracy theories are compiled from various missions... not just the first?
And... have you ever seen any comparison of effects seen in photos vs the other missions vs photos in the first pointing out differences? I'm going to bet you haven't. I'm also going to bet you "so don't want to get into this either"... except maybe to post another 20 times on how your not trying to prove anything.
MiniD
-
Roughly.... When was it that this forum became so retarded?
-
You are all Dweebs, or nerds actually...
-
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903.jpg)
Vhy is Eldreen's reeght seede-a, vheech is in shedoo su vell leet? Es iff frum a secundery leeght suoorce-a tu lefft ooff cemera puseeshun 'ffeelling in'zee shedoos Eldreen eppeers tu be-a stundeeng in a 'puul' ooff leeght, es iff frum a lerge-a sput leeght. Um de hur de hur de hur. Yet zee oonly knoon suoorce-a ooff leeght is zee Soon, vheech vuoold geefe-a ifee illoomeeneshun frum cemera tu hureezun. Bork bork bork! Zee beckgruoond is oooot iff fucoos, vheech vuoold nut ooccoor vhee useeng a veede-a ungle-a lens in breeght leeght. Um de hur de hur de hur. Zee epertoore-a used vuoold be-a eruoond f8 oor f11 Ermstrung hes hees cemera etteched tu hees chest peck. Yet zee feeoopuint ooff thees peectoore-a is es iff zee cemera is et heed heeeght. Um de hur de hur de hur. Yuoo ere-a luukeeng doon oon Eldreen und cun see-a zee tup ooff hees helmet und zee tup ooff hees beckpeck. Zee gruoond betveee zee tvu is lefel.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Roughly.... When was it that this forum became so retarded?
Its not the boards, they dont have personality.
At least I dont think they do.
<--- Puts tinfoil hat on is head and crawls under the desk wishing he was a religious guys :D
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
*sigh* against my better judgement...
(http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/fake3.jpg)
Explain that lightsource. (and no, it's too big to be the sun)
Why is it to big to be the sun? Please provide the proof for this statement.
Explained:
Low image quality combined with a curved visor give the larger look to the flair in the picture. Go to an airstrip on a bright day and look at the sun flares in various aircraft glass and you will see a wide verity of sizes and shaped of flares. This in conjunction with the low (compared to more recent) resolution of the LIGHTWEIGHT cameras used have produced the image you are showing.
Oh and by the way Elvis is dead, he really is, sorry for the bad news.
-
If Astronauts really landed on the moon, they would have sliced off a piece of cheese and brought it home. :)
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
If Astronauts really landed on the moon, they would have sliced off a piece of cheese and brought it home. :)
NO!. I checked with MiniD and after he chewed me out for being so stupid, and being an prettythang and a "tard" he told me the only right answer, his. You see, anyone who is as brilliant as he is, would know that the lift weight of the Saturn rockets limited the amount of food that the astronauts could take along. So the plan was simple. Go to the moon, slice off some cheese, and eat it on the way home. Duh! :eek: :eek: :eek:
And the glare thing is easy to explain too. It's the reflection of the very large cheese slicer they used! Double Duh!
:D :D :D
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
NO!. I checked with MiniD and after he chewed me out for being so stupid, and being an prettythang and a "tard" he told me the only right answer, his. You see, anyone who is as brilliant as he is, would know that the lift weight of the Saturn rockets limited the amount of food that the astronauts could take along. So the plan was simple. Go to the moon, slice off some cheese, and eat it on the way home. Duh! :eek: :eek: :eek:
And the glare thing is easy to explain too. It's the reflection of the very large cheese slicer they used! Double Duh!
:D :D :D
ROTFLMAO
Thats a great post Syzygyone.
-
Thanks, it came to me in a dream!
-
Well.. at least you have imp to laugh with syz. And I don't really know how to take the "It came to me in a dream" comment. Pretty scary really.
Oh... and show where I called you any of those things. Please. Worst I recall on you was equating your post to that of a third grader. And.. well.. that one still applies.
MiniD
-
Not intented to offend you MiniD. Sorry if I did.
Im just a suker for sarcasm :D
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Well.. at least you have imp to laugh with syz.
hehe, you dont like it when the joke's on you huh?
(I'm laughing too btw, I guess that makes three of us then?)
-
Oh yea... you also have hortlund to laugh with you too.
MiniD
-
but they did take home some cheese...but they had to incinerate it because it was aincient...LIMBURGER
and that was the last time the ever took a present from the moons only inhabitant...they would have took him home but he said he would be crushed under our atmospheres incredible pressure...
and it was him that took all those films to...
-
This whole "Was it Faked" arguement is a joke, isn't it?. You weren't seriously expecting educated debate here?
I read our posts, not because I want to be convinced, but because I want to be entertained!
So, take a chill pill and join the party!
:D :D :D
-
(http://www.rhyners.com/01picks/images/hijack.jpg)
-
Hortlund you seriously make me chuckle
with your (lack) of intellectual standing.
Not only is it painfully obvious that the
light reflected in those astronauts visors
Is the SUN, but more over they clearly show it's light sourcing. (aka the sun)
It is sad that the one here screaming and wimpering
about how the picture is fake, or it can't possibly be
the sun is from someone with "such a high degree of intelligence." lol
It is nice to know that we have people like you in this
world though,... It gives the rest of us jobs, as well as good laughs.
You see horty, if it is anyone here that is "weak-minded"
it is you. Time and time again, the obvious has been pointed
out by many others and yet.. you continue with your inability
to comprehend/grasp what is shown to you. :) It is truely funny.
Oh and horty, you have nothing in the mental power department on me,
and by the looks of it,... Not much on anyone else here either.
Oh, and as for my inability to be a "critical thinker" I'd suffice
it to say that for the simple fact I am an accomplished
Pilot/Artist/Musican/Psychologist.. speaks volumes on my
ability to think above and beyond your limited scope.
-
yeah, what he said! biotch!
-
Originally posted by JoeSmoe
I am an accomplished
Pilot/Artist/Musican/Psychologist.. speaks volumes on my
ability to think above and beyond your limited scope.
hehehee...does this sound vaugely familiar to anyone else?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Roughly.... When was it that this forum became so retarded?
I blame the Air Warriors.
-
i blame people not going outside and doing something
-
If the light source is not the sun then what is it? ONE GIANT bellybutton LIGHT IN THE STUDIO? i have never seen a light that F^&%ing big before!
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
I blame the Air Warriors.
Now you've gone too far Liberal scum!!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I always thought that the conspiracy theory was that only the first landing was faked. This to meet JFKs challenge. The yanks went there afterwards and collected their rocks and took their real pictures.
Man oh man how most like to jump down other's throats for misunderstanding what was written.
Correct me if I'm wrong Hortlund.
1) The quote above is not an admission of belief in a conspiracy theory. He only pointed out of what he understood the "faked moon landing" conspiracy was about is all. He doesn't say in his post that "I believe the moon landing to be faked or a conspiracy."
2) Hortlund in his "Explain these sun reflection pictures to me as they don't appear to be from the sun (from what I understand it appears to not be from the sun) posts."
He's only asking for proof that it is the sun in the reflections for those that believe it is.
Reading comprehension as I see it.
-
Sorry for inciting such a riot with my cheese comment...
I just couldn't resist being a bit sarcastic about this post, that's all... It's downright hysterical! I can't help it, I can't I can't I can't!
Syzygyone, hysterical retort also... WTG! LOL Got a great laugh when I read it.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Sorry for inciting such a riot with my cheese comment...
I just couldn't resist being a bit sarcastic about this post, that's all... It's downright hysterical! I can't help it, I can't I can't I can't!
Syzygyone, hysterical retort also... WTG! LOL Got a great laugh when I read it.
I live to serve!:) ;) :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Correct me if I'm wrong Hortlund.
1) The quote above is not an admission of belief in a conspiracy theory. He only pointed out of what he understood the "faked moon landing" conspiracy was about is all. He doesn't say in his post that "I believe the moon landing to be faked or a conspiracy."
2) Hortlund in his "Explain these sun reflection pictures to me as they don't appear to be from the sun (from what I understand it appears to not be from the sun) posts."
He's only asking for proof that it is the sun in the reflections for those that believe it is.
Reading comprehension as I see it.
Nope, you are right on both points.
To be perfectly honest I thought I had explained both those points more than once in this thread though, but apparently it didnt get across.
Its been fun to watch alot of people fall over themselves though to jump down my throat. But to be perfectly honest, this one has all the makings of an all-time classic:
the simple fact I am an accomplished Pilot/Artist/Musican/Psychologist.. speaks volumes on my ability to think above and beyond your limited scope.
*smile*
In fact I'd put it in my sig if I didnt think he is one of those two week wonders.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
I blame the Air Warriors.
Yeah! It's them Air Warrior'ses! Them Shills is the worstest. :D
-
http://www.badastronomy.com/
-
(http://www.reelcriticism.com/ziggyrealm/images/photos/capricornone.gif)
Here-a ve-a hefe-a a peectoore-a ooff Boozz Eldreen retoorneeng tu zee "LEM". Zee leeghting is ixtremely soospect. Um de hur de hur de hur.
(http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/dvd/images/Capricorn_One.jpg)
In thees peectoore-a zee refflecshun ooff zee estrunoot's feesur shoos SPOT LIGHTS!
-
Once again, in difference to soburo...
hortlund said:
Explain that lightsource. (and no, it's too big to be the sun)
I'm missing where he'd like it to be explained how it can be the sun. He outright denies it.
And... once again, read my initial reply to hortlund. It was simple. The idea that the first moon landing could be fake, but all the rest real is by far and away the easiest to prove and disprove making the very notion of it silly. The very presentation of the concept silly. Its almost as if someone doesn't believe they used the term "I thought".
MiniD
-
I got interested in this problem of the sun's reflection so I cracked the old physics book and went to the optics section.
It might seem that the sun's reflection should appear like a luminescent quarter glued to the helmet but this is incorrect.
What you see in the reflection is a virtual image appearing to originate somewhere behind the mirror. In the case of the sun and the astronaut, the sun's image will appear behind the visor, at a distance of half the radius of curvature of the visor. Its simple equation I can show if you like.
So, if you get right up in the astronaut's face, the visor will occupy most of your visual field. The virtual image of the sun will still be some distance away and occupy much less of your field. As you move away, the visor "gets smaller"(occupies less visual field) very quickly while the sun's image gets smaller at a slower rate because it was already farther away. The net result is that the sun's image will occupy a larger percentage of the visor as you move farther away.
I tried this out with the convex passenger side mirror on my van. At 1ft away, the sun occupied maybe 1% of the mirror. From 30ft away, it occupied about 50%. Alot of that 50% was probably glare and not actual sun, but thats probably the case with the photo in question. I bet if the photographer moved far enough away the glare would obscure the other guy's whole helmet.
Long story short, the sun reflection is bigger (proportionaly) because the guy is farther away. You would have to find another photo, taken from a similar distance and with similar lens filters to make a real comparison.
-
Hot damn! Regurge is smart! :D
-
Now regurge, you understand that what you post makes sense, and because of this, some here may be unable to understand.
Please, stop with your facts, and put away that mind of yours, you may start to scare a few on here with reality.
:D
-
hey Hortlund you ever see Capiricorn 1, me thinks one time to many ;)
-
(http://www.arff.info/photos/mirror.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Once again, in difference to soburo...I'm missing where he'd like it to be explained how it can be the sun. He outright denies it.
And... once again, read my initial reply to hortlund. It was simple. The idea that the first moon landing could be fake, but all the rest real is by far and away the easiest to prove and disprove making the very notion of it silly. The very presentation of the concept silly. Its almost as if someone doesn't believe they used the term "I thought".
MiniD
He asks for the explaination because in his limited knowledge of physics and photography, he discounts the light source as the being from the sun. Up to us to prove it is the sun to convince him, no?
-
Originally posted by Regurge
I tried this out with the convex passenger side mirror on my van. At 1ft away, the sun occupied maybe 1% of the mirror. From 30ft away, it occupied about 50%. Alot of that 50% was probably glare and not actual sun,
Excellent troll Hortlund, becuase of this thread people are staring at the sun through mirrors in real life. That's not as good as getting them to send money to you, but pretty damn good none the less .
-
Ozark,
In this instance, one picture truly is worth a thousand words...
However, I'm glad Regurge took to the time to explain how the optics of a convex mirror work when viewed from different distances in relation to the reflection in the mirror.
Thanks for taking the time Regurge! I was too lazy to do it myself.... LOL