The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Max Fagin on September 03, 2006, 02:24:06 PM
-
So the ESA probe SMART-1 crashed into the moon right on schedual. The explosion was to dim to see with the naked eye. But it was picked up by Amature astronomers all over the western hemisphere.
To the FE'ers who belive that the entire space program is a fake, how do you account for this?
-
They hit the moon with a rocket. How is that proof of the space program?
-
TheEngineer, Read your own FAQ:
"NASA does not send rockets into space, they instead spend the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead"
crashing an orbiter into the moon should be proof that the above statement is not correct.
-
it doesn't say cannot.
This could be proof that they are onto FES
-
it doesn't say cannot.
This could be proof that they are onto FES
They're that worried about five net loons?
-
Exactly,
If anything theyre just trying to stop this before the off chance of it spreading happens.
-
CrimsonKing, think very carefully about what your implying here.
I brought SMART-1 to the forum's attention about 12 hours before it crashed. I think I'm right in saying that no one here would have known about this otherwise.
If NASA/ESA had planned SMART-1 just to discredit this forum, they would have had to of known that I would post it here. You are indirectly accusing me of being part of the conspiracy.
Not only that, but I didn't learn about SMART-1 from a NASA source, rather I learned about it from an independant science blog. That means they would of had to manuver a non NASA writer to post about it on his blog which I don't cite all that often. Something tells me they wouldn't have spent so much money perpetrating the hoax on the incrediblly small chance that it actually made it to this forum.
-
What's the big deal anyway? They crashed a probe into the moon. When they land one there, I will be mildly exited.
-
The Engineer, I am curious as to how they could prove to you that they have successfully landed there when/if they do. Is there anything that could be done that would prove to you without a doubt that they have landed there?
-
have NASA bring him along would be good I'm sure
Oh and I realize the implications of what I said, the comment was made in jest, but you have to realize that it really wouldnt be too hard to send something to crash into the moon, just need a lot of rocketfuel and something somewhat explosive (to make things easier.)
-
SMART-1 was made by ESA for fucks sake.
-
I think I'm right in saying that no one here would have known about this otherwise.
Believe it or not, you're not the only one that watches/listens/reads the news.... :shock:
-
Perhaps, there was no "crash" or possibly even a "probe". According to FE theory, the Moon emits the light reflected from the Earth. Therefore, an explosion on the surface of the Earth would have appeared on the surface of the Moon. That is how they could arrange the "collision" even without launching a rocket.
-
Perhaps, there was no "crash" or possibly even a "probe". According to FE theory, the Moon emits the light reflected from the Earth. Therefore, an explosion on the surface of the Earth would have appeared on the surface of the Moon. That is how they could arrange the "collision" even without launching a rocket.
You are full of shit.
-
"You are full of shit."
I love you, too.
-
SMART-1 was made by ESA for fucks sake.
Yea, we know. When they are technologically capable of landing on the moon, put out a press release.
-
You guys are crazy lol the earth is flat?Firworks on the moon?What are you guys smoking cuz i want some.
-
You guys are crazy lol the earth is flat?Firworks on the moon?What are you guys smoking cuz i want some.
Maybe you should read the thread first.
-
Apparently you reply fast also.
P.S. Where can i find some fireworks?I mean i want some like they used on the moon.They must be really good if they got thru the atmosphere and travelled alllllll the way to the moon.....Hmmm i wonder how big the wick would have to be.
-
Spike, please read the entire thread before posting about it.
I was using "fireworks" in it's metaphorical sense.
No, I don't actually mean that someone was conducting a late 4th of July celebration on the moon.
"Fireworks on the Moon" just made a better title than say "Probe crashes into Luna" or "Lights from the moon's surface."
-
SMART-1 was made by ESA for fucks sake.
Yea, we know. When they are technologically capable of landing on the moon, put out a press release.
TheEngineer you have not yet answered my question, how could they prove to you that they have landed on the moon. It seems to be that it is impossible to entirely prove to you that they will land on the moon.
-
Well, they didn't land on it, they crashed into it.
-
you still didnt answer his question
you guys always avoid giving answers
-
SMART-1 was made by ESA for fucks sake.
Yea, we know. When they are technologically capable of landing on the moon, put out a press release.
TheEngineer you have not yet answered my question, how could they prove to you that they have landed on the moon. It seems to be that it is impossible to entirely prove to you that they will land on the moon.
You cant FEers are too STUBBERN AND CLOSE MINDED and besides if it did happen that would ruin there stupid conspiracy theory.
-
you still didnt answer his question
you guys always avoid giving answers
When they actually land on it, I will believe it.
-
it already happend so y dont u believe it
-
When the ESA lands on it I will believe that the ESA did it. That is what we are talking about.
-
The thread starter made it out to be a huge deal. THEY CRASHED INTO THE MOON. Call me when they have figured out how to land on it, then I will be impressed.
-
If we did it in the 60's they obviosly can do it now so y not believe it now
-
THEY CRASHED INTO IT!!!
-
According to FE theory, the Moon emits the light reflected from the Earth. .
i thought FE-bollox said the moon was like a torch or something?
-
When the ESA lands on it I will believe that the ESA did it. That is what we are talking about.
But how is that any different from what NASA has claimed to have already done, why does the ESA elicit more respect. When/if the ESA does land there what is there to stop you from saying, this never happened? There must be some solid difference between the two, I fail to understand what makes one a liar and the other pure truth without any clear and concise reasoning behind it.
-
THANK YOU THATS MY POINT
-
TheEngineer,
I made a big deal about this becasue it is big. Next to the Deep Impact probe from a few years ago, this is one of the few space event visible from earth.
Speaking of visible from earth, your bio says your from Arizona. Well the ISS is passing over Arozona tonight just after sunset. This is the best time for you to actually see as object on orbit.
Tonight, at 8:23:30 your time, look towards the NW, about 33 degrees up from the horizon. This sighting only lasts for about a minute, so you will have to be exactlly on on time. Here is an official clock for you to use.
http://www.time.gov
The ISS will be traveling in an arc from the west to east. If your on time, you can't miss it. It should outshine most of the stars in the sky.
Use the method I explained in my thread on satelite spotting to calculate it's altitude. Then come back and tell me if you still have doubts about the space program.
For those of you in the New York area, you haven't been left out. The station will be passing over you as well. At 8:18:45 look due west about 50 degrees above the horizon. This sighting lasts longer than the one in Arizona, almost a full 3 minutes. Again use the trig meathod that I described to calculate its altitude, and tell me if you still don't belive in the space program.
If you don't want to do the math, go outside and watch for the ISS anyway, it's a wonderfull sight. . .
-
I fail to understand what makes one a liar and the other pure truth without any clear and concise reasoning behind it.
When did I call anyone a liar?
-
"i thought FE-bollox said the moon was like a torch or something?"
Dear Ezkerraldean,
This is from the "Flat Earth FAQ *READ BEFORE POSTING*":
"The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth."
-
I fail to understand what makes one a liar and the other pure truth without any clear and concise reasoning behind it.
When did I call anyone a liar?
Well it is quite appearent that you do not believe Nasa has landed there, which, would by the very basis of the defination mean you think that they lied when they said they did, which of course would make them liars. Please get to the question this time though TheEngineer, because it is appearent that you are directly avoiding answering it thus far
-
Um, TheEngineer acts as a Devil's Advocate, he doesn't literally believe the world is flat or that NASA is a hoax.
-
Um, TheEngineer acts as a Devil's Advocate, he doesn't literally believe the world is flat or that NASA is a hoax.
That is quite obvious, but a good devils advocate is able to defend his statements, if TheEngineer is not able to defend his statements then he is doing a very poor job as acting as a Devil's Advocate.
-
Um, TheEngineer acts as a Devil's Advocate, he doesn't literally believe the world is flat or that NASA is a hoax.
That is quite obvious, but a good devils advocate is able to defend his statements, if TheEngineer is not able to defend his statements then he is doing a very poor job as acting as a Devil's Advocate.
Since I never said anyone was lying, I don't have to defend having said it.
-
Perhaps you forgot the question TheEngineer, here it is for you again
The Engineer, I am curious as to how they could prove to you that they have successfully landed there when/if they do. Is there anything that could be done that would prove to you without a doubt that they have landed there?
-
Perhaps you forgot the question TheEngineer, here it is for you again
The Engineer, I am curious as to how they could prove to you that they have successfully landed there when/if they do. Is there anything that could be done that would prove to you without a doubt that they have landed there?
I will consider the evidence they present when the ESA actually lands on the moon.
-
I will consider the evidence they present when the ESA actually lands on the moon.
you cannot land using the xenon ion engine that SMART-1 used. do you have any idea how they work?
-
I will consider the evidence they present when the ESA actually lands on the moon.
you cannot land using the xenon ion engine that SMART-1 used. do you have any idea how they work?
Yes, I do.
Like I said, when the ESA can land on the moon, I will be impressed.
-
I will consider the evidence they present when the ESA actually lands on the moon.
you cannot land using the xenon ion engine that SMART-1 used. do you have any idea how they work?
Yes, I do.
Like I said, when the ESA can land on the moon, I will be impressed.
It's impressive when the ESA does it but not NASA? How is the ESA any less part of the conspiracy?
-
I will consider the evidence they present when the ESA actually lands on the moon.
you cannot land using the xenon ion engine that SMART-1 used. do you have any idea how they work?
Yes, I do.
Like I said, when the ESA can land on the moon, I will be impressed.
It's impressive when the ESA does it but not NASA? How is the ESA any less part of the conspiracy?
I hope you'll have better luck with that question then I did, Dysfunction, TheEngineer doesn't seem to like to back up his statements.
-
thank you cause i tried the same question
-
It's impressive when the ESA does it but not NASA?
When did I say that?
The thread starter made a big deal about the ESA CRASHING INTO THE MOON. That does not impress me. When they land on it, I will be impressed with the ESA.
-
It's impressive when the ESA does it but not NASA?
When did I say that?
The thread starter made a big deal about the ESA CRASHING INTO THE MOON. That does not impress me. When they land on it, I will be impressed with the ESA.
So you do believe that NASA has landed on the moon then?
-
When did I say anything about NASA?
-
Just because ESA and NASA represent different governments, does not mean that they are not part of the same conspiracy. If you read the FAQ, it clearly states that world governments only give the impression of being disorganized, but in fact are quite organized. And if ESA can now - some 27 years after the alleged manned landings on the moon - only get as far as crashing an unmanned probe into the moon, the evidence is strongly in favor of supporting the fact that the manned landings were bogus.
Sure, they could've shot some rocket up, but taking people to the moon? Ha! For one thing, they would be fried in the Van Allen radiation belts. For another thing, look at all the shots and footage from the landings. They are typical, staged studio shots. Look at the sky in those pictures - pitch black. I guess you either don't see stars from the moon or they didn't even bother painting them onto the set walls. And the low gravity effects, the stiff american flag, such low budget bullshit. And the masses bought it and ate it up, and got brainwashed.
It was good publicity at the time, with the "Cold War" and all... got people to pay more taxes to fund bogus programs such as NASA and nuclear weapons, who knows where the billions and trillions of dollars really went. And suddenly Americans and Russians are all friendly... and we never saw any evidence of the thousands of megaton nuclear warheads that we spent all the money on except in propaganda bogus videos. Where did all the money go?
I think they killed Kennedy because he was too honest and he would've exposed the government conspiracy. He had to go.
And now they're trying to bullshit us with this 9-11 so they can control air travel even more than before, and global warming threats to keep people from finding out about the ice wall and learning the truth about the universe.
Oh, and by the way, I was looking for the ISS at the precise time and the correct part of the sky where I was told it should've been to prove that there is a space program, and surprise surprise - I saw nothing. Just because you say I will see it there are that time doesn't automatically make it exist, and some of us actually go out there and look for these things. Unlike others who just take your word for it. I guess ISS stands for the Invisible Space Station.
-
Graphix72,
Not that you will listen, but your arguments about the legitamacy of the moon landings (The Van Allen belts, The lack of stars, the low gravity, the stiff flag) are all adressed here:
http://www.clavius.org/
This is the most thourough debunking of the moon hoax argument I have ever found. I urge anyone who doubts the appolo program to take a careful look at this website.
Now as for the ISS, I can't explain why you couldn't see it. What I can do is offer much more reasonable explination then "The ISS does not exist." Mabey you didn't look in the right place, or at the right time. That has happened to me before, and I spot satelites all the time.
Remember that if NASA wanted to fool the world, anouncing the times of major sightings would be a very unwise thing to do. After all, if every sighting proved negative, that would be more evidence of a conspiracy then anything. It would have been simpler for them to say that satelites can not be seen from the surface of the Earth.
Please try again, and please go to http://www.clavius.org before posting about the Moon Hoax again.
-
The Engineer is a fake, always answers a question with a question. Bring back Dogplatter, he was a fake but at least he was funny!
-
Also, getting back to the topic of SMART-1, here is a sequence of images taken under higher magnification from the CFH Telescope in Hawaii.
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Smart1/animdust_small.gif
What is remarkable about these images is that they actaully show the lunar dust being kicked up from the impact. That means scientists can use this video to learn things about the behavior and makeup of lunar dust.
Of course, if you think this video is faked. . .
Well, nevermind. You all know what I have to say to that. . .
-
That means scientists can use this video to learn things about the behavior and makeup of lunar dust.
Shouldn't they already know the makeup of lunar dust? You know, since we've been there...
-
All I see in the "impact video" is a bunch of static with a quick flash of light and more static, and something that is supposed to be lunar dust??? I can't even tell that's the moon. I could make a video like that videotaping my TV on a blank channel. I wouldn't even need any specialized graphics software for that.
If that piece of static is supposed to convince me that there is a space program, I'd sooner believe that there is a "land down under".
What if I told you that the bright flash you saw and the "lunar dust" that followed was actually a fire dragon sneezing, and smoke coming out of his nostrils. Would you believe that? Why not - the video shows it quite clearly.
-
I didn't mean to submit this video as evidence, graphix72, I just thought it was an interesting addition to the topic. I know video like that could be easily faked, but remember, the burden of proof is on you to provide me with evidence that this film is faked, not the other way around.
You see, I have evidence that this film is legitimate. It came from a reputable scientific installation that has made valuable contributions to the scientific community. Also, other independent observatories as well as amateur astronomers witnessed and recorded this event. If you want to call the CFH telescope and everyone else who recorded the SMART-1 crash part of the conspiracy, that's fine. But you must have evidence to make that accusation plausible.
And TheEngineer, your right about us knowing the composition of lunar dust, but only from the samples we brought back. Who knows if the moon is as homogeneous as it looks? Maybe there are places where the soil composition is different. Maybe the soil has greater silicone concentrations in some places? Who knows? Every little bit of data counts when we are dealing with a place that is only .01% explored.
-
Actually, since you submitted the video, the burden of proof falls to you to provide evidence that it's not faked. But, even if it's genuine, it still shows nothing of value that could be looked at to prove that the earth is round. Even if they did shoot something at the moon, and hit it, it still doesn't make the earth round.
The way the RE community works is through mass propaganda. Saturating the media with images and videos that don't show anything and don't prove anything, and telling us what they "really" are eventually brainwashes the masses into believing whatever they wish. If the earth really is round, then why do you think they make CDs and DVDs like that, in the image of the earth? Shouldn't they look like a ball instead? But it would be silly sticking a ball into your CD player now, wouldn't it? A CD fits there much more nicely. That's because it's been designed in the image of nature and nature is efficient.
So next time you look at an LP, a CD or a DVD, remember: The earth is FLAT!
-
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Smart1/animdust_small.gif
It looks much like a cloud of smoke after an explosion.
-
OK, I guess I was wrong about where the burden of proof lay on that particular video. You will notice however that I did supply evidence of it authenticity in my previous post.
Now the argument about CD's is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard on this forum (and that's saying a lot) but I feel obligated to respond.
Let me see if I understand this. CD's were designed to efficient, thus they were modeled against nature (and the Earth), ergo the earth is shaped like a CD?
Why not carry your argument a little further? Our brain is a much more efficient at data storage then a DVD is. Isn't our brain a product of natue?
But anyway, that whole topic is rediculous and we won't get anywhere if we try to debate it. Let's stick to the main point.
What is you evidence that the video of SMART-1 crshing was faked?
Furthermore, what is your evidence that the RE community brainwashes the masses through propaganda?
-
Actually, that video is somewhat interesting. I went through it frame by frame and found something strange. If you watch carefully, there is a small circle of pixels on the right side, right in the middle of the right edge and horizontally just between the explosion and the right edge of the frame (vertically almost perfectly in the center). These pixels don't fluctuate like the rest of the "static" in the picture does, which would indicate that they are a permanent feature or object, apparently on the surface of the moon.
Now to me it looks too geometrically perfect to be a large boulder or any other natural phenomenon - small crater or whatever - and also it is lit on all sides so it must either be self lit or have an external light source lighting up the dark side.
But from what we know, there are no "bases" or buildings or structures like that on the moon, so it's likely that this picture is not from the moon at all. It could be taken in the Arizona desert, and the geometric structure could be a building or a fence (metal, reflective) around a structure. Probably taken from high up, they didn't notice the regularity of the structure in the video because of its poor quality, or didn't think people would interpret is as such.
I would guess the video is actually taken somewhere in the southwest, in the desert at night.
-
HAHAHA!!! Your CD comment was brilliant!! The most illogical argument I've ever heard!! Well done!
-
HAHAHA!!! Your CD comment was brilliant!! The most illogical argument I've ever heard!! Well done!
Not quite up to Osseldorf's standards, but funny nonetheless.
-
Graphix72,
First off, thank you. You are the first FE'er I've ever come across on this forum that will offer evidence to support his position, without needing to be asked twenty times. Thank you.
Yes, I noticed the "Crater" as well. If you look harder, you will see that there are simmilar phenomena all over the image.
Your right that it looks self lit, but what I forrgot to tell you was that this image wasn't taken in visible light. This is an IR video. SMART-1 crashed into an area where the sun had already set on the moon, so the only way to resolve the dust was in the IR spectrum. And I don't think it looks to round to be natural. There are some almost perfectly circlular craters on the moon. Have you ever seen Tycho?
http://www.spacegrant.hawaii.edu/class_acts/WebImg/tycho-b'.gif
Anyway, the fact that the film is in Infra-red explains why it appears self lit. There really isn't any light source around, what you are seeing is just leftover heat from the crater being exposed to direct sunlight for 2-weeks.
Also, there really was no reason for this to be filmed here on Earth. The one thing that I think we can agree on is that something crashed into the surface of the moon a few nights ago. Remember, this was observed by astronomers all over America. So why borther faking a video wen you have the real thing to film.
Again, thank you for presenting evidence. Keep it up!
-
Sorry, the link to the picture of Tycho Crater didn't work. Try this one.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lo5tycho_big.gif
-
"What is you evidence that the video of SMART-1 crshing was faked?"
Dear Max Fagin,
My impression is that the very evidences you are so kindly providing are gradually proving that.
(1) Surprisingly poor quality of the videos, particularly considering that, according to the official version of the event, the videos' producers knew the time and place of the "hit" far ahead. Compare the quality of the videos with the picture of Tycho Crater you have provided. Feel the difference.
(2) They claim that the hit was intentional. From your post I have learned that "SMART-1 crashed into an area where the sun had already set on the moon". Before that you were assuring me that half of the globe was staring at their telescopes trying to see the "hit". How those amateur astronomers could observe the details of that magnificent event if it was supposed to happen in the darkness? Had they intentionally chosen that dark place?
(3) No proof of the hit was demonstrated. A body with the mass of 2 tons moving with the speed of 70 km/s would have had kinetic energy of (2000 kg * (70,000 m/s)^2)/2 = 4,900,000,000,000 J, which is slightly more that 1 kiloton of TNT equivalent. Sounds like quite a lot. Well, maybe, we should wait 2 weeks to have the place illuminated by the Sun.
(4) There is nothing, just nothing in those videos that would definitely indicate that what was filmed really happened on the Moon.
-
Those are all good points Humble_Scientists. I guess I haven't been to clear about the nature of the SMART-1 Mission and just what they were, and were not trying to do. So let me adress each of your points and teach you some more about SMART-1 in the process:
1) SMART-1 wasn't launched just to crash into the moon. It had been orbiting the moon for the last couple years as a surface mapper. It was only once the mission was complete that the ESA decided to crash it. They gave it the biggest downward push that they could, but with SMART's ion engine, the best they could do was about 15 ft of desent per 1 km of horizontal motion. Because SMART was falling so slowly, and the topography of the moon was so poorly understood, the scientists were not 100% certain where the impact would occur. SMART might hit an unkown mountain and crash a full orbit and dozens of kilometers off target.
Becasue the impact sight was uncertain, the only way to photograph it was to cover a large area. The photographes we have been seeing are actually blown up images of a picture about 200 km on a side. for compairison, Tycho is about 90 km wide. You can't cover an area that size with sufficient resolution to get a perfect photo. Thats why the photos are such poor quality. They have been blown up by a factor of a 4000.
2) Yes, they did intentionally choose to land in darkness. If they had landed on the day side, the brightness of the moon would outshine the flash. Also, they actually landed very close to the terminator in the hope that the crash might kick some dust up high enough to be illuminated by the sun. That didn't happen though.
3) It wouldn't do any good to have the place illuminated by the sun. The crater was only about 10 meters across. Again, that's why they landed on the night side of the moon. The explosion might not have been visible otherwise. And the crater will certinally not be visible from Earth.
4) Your right, there is nothing in those videos that indicate it was filming what acctually happened on the moon. But something did crash into the moon, so why bother faking it?
You can see here for a more detailed discussion of what I am saying at the bellow URL. There is also a map of where the crash took place. Note how close it is to the terrminator line.
http://www.planetary.org/news/2006/0829_SMART1_Prepares_for_Lunar.html
Keep up the good questions everyone!
-
Kinetic energy of (2000 kg * (70,000 m/s)^2)/2 = 4,900,000,000,000 J, which is slightly more that 1 kiloton of TNT equivalent, and you are telling me that the crater was only about 10 meters across? Unobservable from earth, unverifiable and completely lost after the fact? Hmmm... sounds a little fishy to me. Remember, 1 kiloton of TNT is 1000 tons, that alone would take up more space than 10 meters across, muchless the hole it would leave if you blew it up. That's like a thousand times more than they used in the Oklahoma City bombing, and that tore down a whole huge building.
You can't convict a man of murder for shooting another if you can't even find the bullet hole on the dead body.
-
I don't know, Graphix72. I can think of a couple explinations. Remember, SMART struck the moon a very glancing blow, so it may not have converted all it's KE into light in the first impact.
Also, 10 meters was only the predicted size by the ESA, but it could easily be much bigger. Unfortunatelly, we don't have any way to check, the smallest features visible on the moon from earth is still about 8km wide, so it would have to be a really big explosion to make a visible crater.
Anyway, this is a good point, and I don't have a definate answer. But I do have some possibilities that are a bit more probable than a worldwide conspiracy.
Again, thanks for providing evidence. It's makes the disscusions so much more enjoyable. . .
-
Summarizing, we have an event that happened in the darkness, was poorly documented and left no traces.
Well, that seems to be an exact description of the result of a typical scientific experiment.
However, I would not rather announce it, publish it or consider it as a proof. If that was a real hit, it was too poorly documented and should not be published. If it was a fake hit, all those "evidences" are just ridiculous.
"something did crash into the moon"
Precisely. Or rather "something exploded somewhere".
"why bother faking it?"
I am not sure. But you might wish to check yourself. Grab some NASA photos "from the Moon". But do not look at them, read this first.
According to NASA, the astronauts landed near the terminator, to lessen the radiation load. Therefore, the Sun on the Moon was just rising when they got there. Therefore, all the shades should be VERY long.
Now look at the pictures.
The shades are short.
-
Precisely. Or rather "something exploded somewhere".
Something definitely exploded on the Moon, not just "somewhere", as the event was visible over half the planet.
-
"Something definitely exploded on the Moon,"
Prove that.
-
Alright then, it exploded either on the Moon or at least out in space several hundred miles, as otherwise it would not have been visible over half the planet.
-
Okay, let's assume something DID explode, for the sake of progressing the argument. What then?
-
"it exploded either on the Moon or at least out in space several hundred miles"
I really like that :D
-
Yeah, let's not argue that something exploded, let's give him that. Where are you going with it?
-
Humble_Scientist,
Again, SMART-1 crashed into the night side of the moon for the express purpose of making it visible from Earth. You seem to think that crashing the probe on the night side was meant to hide something, but irronically, if they wanted to hide the crash, they would have come down on the day side!
The Apollo astronauts did not land on the terminator. I would like to see the source that gave you that info, becasue I beleive you have misread it. The astronaut landed a few days after lunar sunrise, so the sun had already climbed a fair distance. Again, you can find a detailed proffesional de-bunking of most moon hoax arguments at http://www.clavius.org
Please take a look at this site before bringing up the topic of the Moon Hoax.
I can't provide proof, in a scientific context, that SMART crashed into the moon. But I can give you some very strong evidence.
1. Independent confirmation from amature astronomers from all over the US.
2. Video and still photographs from major observatories and amature astronomers.
3. Radio observatories tracked a signal from SMART-1 right up to the time of the crash. Granted, these observatories were in collaboration with the ESA, but it's hard to belive that the entire staff of the DSN (Deep Space Network) is in on the conspiracy.
Again, it is impossible for the explosion to have been in beetween Earth and the moon, as the parallax from the photographs would have given it away.
-
Now you are starting to sound as if the MOON is round too! Its not enough that you insist that the earth is round, but now the moon too?? The next thing you'll try to feed me is that the sun and the stars are all round, right? Why not make everything in the universe round, shall we?
-
What I am getting at Grafix was my origional point of this topic.
1. We obviouslly have the technology to get equipment to the moon, so the spcae program can't really be the fraud that most FE'er make it our to be. Granted, it is pretty simple to crash a rocket into the moon, but the FAQ doesn't seem to give NASA even that much credit. The FAQ makes NASA sound like nothing more than a buch of Photoshop jockeys.
2. This point is a little harder to prove, but it's at least suggested by the SMART mission. SMART-1 was in orbit of the moon for several years before the crash. I know, it is possible that SMART might have just been a missile launched from Earth just a few minutes before the crash. But the crash scenario makes more sense if you allow SMART to be an orbiting probe. You can't orbit a flat disk (Which the moon is according to the FAQ.)
-
And as to your last comment, yes. The RE model suggests that all celestial bodies including asteroids, moons, planets, stars and star clusters are spherical. But no, we don't think the everything in the universe is round.
Any larger than star clusters, and the distances become so great that gravity has trouble forming things into spheres. So we get things like galaxies. Which are infact flat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NGC_4414_%28NASA-med%29.jpg
http://w-uh.com/images/galaxy_M101.jpg
That's it!!! FE theory isn't wrong, it's just off by a couple orders of magnitude! Planets and stars aren't flat, but bigger things are!
Are you willing to accept that?
-
Dear Max Fagin,
"The Apollo astronauts did not land on the terminator."
They did.
"I would like to see the source that gave you that info,"
Sure. For example:
"The Apollo 11 landing site was to the right of center in this photograph, near the terminator (the transition from day to night)."
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A11_LandingSite_viewsof.html
"I can't provide proof, in a scientific context, that SMART crashed into the moon."
That's the whole point. I am glad we both have agreed on that.
-
Oh, OK. I see where we are getting confused.
That picture was taken in 1967, a full two years before the Apollo 11 landing, and the terminator isn't stationary. it moves as the moon rotates (yes the moon does rotate, please don't anyone correct me, it rotates once a month.)
In fact there is a good reason the earth based telescope chose to photograph the landing site when it was so close to the night side. That is the best time to photograph it. When the sun is low in the lunar sky, you get the longest shadows and the best contrast, as you said.
But that photo was taken from an earth based scope, we
-
have no idea how accuratelly it displays the terminator at the time of landing.
Also, I may not be able to provied proof that the SMART crash is what I say it is, but science isn't concerned with proof, it's concerned with evidence. And I can (and have) provided evidence that SMART-1, a probe orbiting the moon, left orbit and crashed into the lunar surface.
-
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't examine all the photos on that site. The last one shows a view from the LM as it decends. Give me a minute. . .
-
Man I love the internet. Finding these photos and links would have taken months doing it the traditional way. Anyway, here is my evidence that they did not land on the terminator. The evidence is in three parts. . .
1) Testimonial:
Here is a quote from http://clavius.org:
"The lunar landing sites and times were chosen so that the astronauts would be working there in the early morning before the temperature had risen to its hottest."
The man who said this is an Apollo technical historian, you can find his bio here:
http://www.clavius.org/about.html
If anyone knows where the day/night line was when Apollo 11 landed, I think it would be him.
2) Photographic:
Here is a panorama from the Apollo 11 mission.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan1105549.jpg
They tried to avoid photographing the sun directly if they could, but you can see where the sun is in this picture. It's reasonablly far off the horizon.
3) Personal.
I have not seen any photographs from Apollo 11 where the shadows display an incorrect length. Here is a website with almost all the surface photos from 11.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/
Can you find a photo that demonstrates what your saying? Then I could perhaps make a more detailed statement.
I guess I can't explain the last photograph on the link you provided. All I can say is that we have a very poor idea of scale (An odd angle combined with perspective makes the crater a questionable measuring tape.) I also think that an unambiguous quote from an Apollo historian contains a bit more credability than a hard to interpret photo, but I'm open to debate on that topic.
Talk to you all tommorow. . .
-
Hmmm... I hate to say this, but I think he convinced me. The moon is round, and we did crash something into it.
-
I'm glad to hear it Graphix72. Thank you for being open minded.
And remember, you should convert back to FM (Flat-Moon) if new evidence comes to light that negates my previous points. That's how science progresses, by being skeptical of all ideas, and being ready to convert if new evidence is discovered. I don't think it will happen, but I am ready to belive FE if new observations negate the RE theory.
-
Kinetic energy of (2000 kg * (70,000 m/s)^2)/2 = 4,900,000,000,000 J,.
No. SMART-1 hits with speed of 2 km/s (and with very low angle). Humble Sciencist made up this 70 km/s. Wonder where he seen that number.
Source: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM7A76LARE_index_0.html
Secondly, it WAS dust: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMWX03VRRE_index_1.html#subhead4
Small advice to Max Fagin: in your place, I would verify any numbers given by FE, as they are often notoriously incorrect (to say at least). There is a bunch of space sites with useful informations about this kind of topic.
-
Hmmmmm. . .
One of our sources is very confused. Thanks for catching the fact that Humble_Scientist said 70 km per second, I think we can agree that's wrong.
But the source I've been using (http://www.planetary.org/news/2006/0829_SMART1_Prepares_for_Lunar.html) says the impact speed was 70 km per hour, not 2 km per second. One of our source did something wrong, that's a difference by a factor of a hundred . . .
But if I had to pick one, I would say your source is more trustworthy, my info came from the planetary society, but your is a direct quote from the ESA. Still, thanks for catching that. It's a pretty big factor in disscusing this issue.
-
Just going off topic for a sec - this thread made Pink Floyd get stuck in my head all day yesterday! :D
-
"Humble Sciencist made up this 70 km/s"
O-o-oh!!!!! What a shame!!!!!
Well, where, where, where did I get this 70 km/s? How I could be so deceiving???
THIS is the source:
"The thing was only weighed a couple tons and was only moving about 70 Km per second when it hit the ground. The crater it left was only supposed to be a dozen or so meters wide."
Guess who posted this truthful information?
Surprisingly, it was... Max Fagin.
Look here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=46494&sid=240a708b0717a559730993509daedccd#46494
So, who "made up this 70 km/s"?
"Thanks for catching the fact that Humble_Scientist said 70 km per second, I think we can agree that's wrong. "
Nice.
"Small advice to Max Fagin: in your place, I would verify any numbers given by FE, as they are often notoriously incorrect (to say at least)."
Lovely, isn't it?
-
pwned.
-
pwned.
Wow, completely.
-
Hahaha that's funny! Great job, Humble!
-
Your absolutely right, Humble_Scientist. I take all the blame for the erroneous number. I'm sorry I accused you of being the source of the error, and I'm also sorry that I didn't check my previous posts to see if I might have been the source of the mistake. Again my apologies.
But ironically, there is a message here that is applicable to every debate on this forum. What we just experienced was a perfect demonstration of why we developed the scientific method, and why it should be used in discussions of FE.
It's simple really:
People make mistakes.
That's why the scientific method has been so successful at describing the world around us. It realizes that everyone (Myself included) is capable of being incorrect. To err is.
So the only way you avoid mistakes, or at least minimize the damage once you've made one, is to be skeptical. And if something is wrong (like my statement about the velocity of SMART-1) it will be corrected very quickly (As Humble_Scientist did.)
If for example, Instead of the scientific method, I were to use the Zeteitc method that is promoted by so many FE'ers (See posts by user The_Earth_Does_Not_Exist for a good demonstration) I would not be admitting to my mistake. I would instead be saying something along the lines of "I didn't say that, because I refuse to acknowledge the evidence."
So once again my apologies. I will be much more careful in the future, and (Like any good scientist) I hope to be proven wrong many, many more times. (It's so much more exciting when you're incorrect.)
-
Oh, I see . . .
-
I love Saladfingers.
-
I love Saladfingers.
Same - I'll start a new thread so as not to derail this one. Carry on lads!
-
Atleast he's posting different images.
In any case, this is a prime example of someone overlooking information due to dogma.
-
Mephistopheles, are you refering to me?
If you are, I would like to point out that admitting when one is wrong is not a common trait among belivers of dogma. . .
-
Hey, the moon looks full tonight. I wonder where that damn thing landed anyway. I wonder if it really is made of cheese and if there is a man inside. I hope the crash didn't kill him.
-
"The thing was only weighed a couple tons and was only moving about 70 Km per second when it hit the ground. The crater it left was only supposed to be a dozen or so meters wide."
Guess who posted this truthful information?
Surprisingly, it was... Max Fagin.
Look here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=46494&sid=240a708b0717a559730993509daedccd#46494
Pwned, I agree. I don't check FIRST apperance of "70 km/s" in this thread.
"Small advice to Max Fagin: in your place, I would verify any numbers given by FE, as they are often notoriously incorrect (to say at least)."
Lovely, isn't it?
Looks like we all must verify anyone numbers. It is no end to this paranoia? ;)
-
I just want to start this topic back up now that die hard FE'ers like dogplatter seem to be posting again.
Doesn't SMART-1's impact seem to say that the space program isn't all a conspiracy, and imply less so that the moon is a sphere?
-
No. You are just a figment of my imagination. Go away. Quit talking to me.