Moon landings information

  • 82 Replies
  • 21565 Views
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Moon landings information
« Reply #60 on: July 12, 2006, 08:46:38 AM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
If this were the case (as opposed to wishful thinking which colours interpretation) then there would be a crease in the shadow as the hill starts to rise, and there is not such a crease.


Dion, you've got to be kidding.  This level of photographic analysis is just too naive to be taken seriously.  You can't just look at a shadows "creases" and reconstruct the topography of the surface upon which it is cast.

In any case, there's definitely circumstances in which the shadow would not appear to have creases: if the hill's slope is small, or the initial change in slope to go from "flat" to "hill" is small, or the shadow is cast parallel to the hill's gradient vector, there would not be any noticeable bend in the shadow.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Moon landings information
« Reply #61 on: July 12, 2006, 08:59:40 AM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
Did you videotape it?


Irrelevant.

Quote
If an allegedly orbiting space station was flying low enough to be seen through binoculars from the ground, then it would not be high enough to orbit according to heliocentric astronomy.


1)  How high do you have to go to orbit according to "heliocentric astronomy"?  Assuming you can avoid ground features and air resistance, you can orbit at any altitude simply by going fast enough.

2)  Instead of merely stating this restriction on what binoculars can and cannot do, perhaps you'd care to quantitatively demonstrate your claim, taking into account the magnification power of available binoculars.

Quote
I saw a shuttle first hand, and it is indistinguishable from an airplane.


What, because it has wings?
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Moon landings information
« Reply #62 on: July 12, 2006, 09:11:42 AM »
Okay, much as I enjoy amateur photoanalysis, I'd like to steer this discussion in the following direction: what evidence is there that humanity lacked in the 1960's or now lacks the ability to go into space?  You may interpret "go into space" as "put unmanned satellites in orbit, assuming a round Earth with a gravitational field" or as "put human beings safely outside the Earth's atmosphere for extended periods of time" or "put human beings on the moon".

I'd especially like to hear the well-justified opinions of anybody who has at least a vague indication of the capabilities of engineering, for example as a result of serving on a U.S. nuclear submarine.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Moon landings information
« Reply #63 on: July 12, 2006, 09:26:52 AM »
the

?

6strings

  • The Elder Ones
  • 689
Moon landings information
« Reply #64 on: July 12, 2006, 11:09:09 AM »
Quote

Which is to conclude that the sources of the different lengths of the shadows are lights in the studio.

Uh, Dionysios, I hate to be a kill-joy, but are you claiming that the reason the shadows are different lengths is because of different light sources?  Because in that case; where are the extra shadows?

If that's not you claim, what is?

Moon landings information
« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2006, 11:15:39 AM »
A slight unevenness in the ground won't necessarily cause shading, especially if the light is directly hitting it, rather than hitting it sidelong. If you look at the shadwo, it does appear that the shadow's perspective is skewed slightly. I've done a lot of work with photography, art and shadow.
'm not a flat earther. I just play one on TV.

Moon landings information
« Reply #66 on: July 12, 2006, 11:43:40 AM »
the

Moon landings information
« Reply #67 on: July 12, 2006, 11:51:52 AM »
the

Moon landings information
« Reply #68 on: July 12, 2006, 12:13:12 PM »
the

Moon landings information
« Reply #69 on: July 12, 2006, 02:20:32 PM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"


  You failed to mention that the shadow leans in the same direction as its caster who is also leaning slightly towards the flag.

- Dionysios


Her may be leaning slightly but that doesn't change the light reflection off the hill, which would indicate the the part of ground on the upper left is higher than that in the rear and the bottom left.
'm not a flat earther. I just play one on TV.

Moon landings information
« Reply #70 on: July 12, 2006, 06:30:50 PM »
it's funny that the moon hoaxers only arguement leans upon a single picture of a shadow.


hah.

Moon landings information
« Reply #71 on: July 12, 2006, 06:35:03 PM »
i'm sorry but is it not possible that they brought lighting equipment to the moon so that they could film the planting of the flag etc?


i mean the lighting, if it were done in a studio, does not appear very professional, i'd always just assumed that they brought up powerful lamps, maybe attached to the lander, so that they could, you know, see when they were on the moon.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Moon landings information
« Reply #72 on: July 13, 2006, 12:32:49 AM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
As far I know I am legally permitted to say we went as deep as 800 feet, but the deepest depth does not exceed that by much.


Legally, okay, fine.  My understanding is that the current world record for a technical (scuba) dive is over 300 meters deep.  I'm pretty sure that a WWII-era submarine has a deeper crush depth than that, not to get into the sort of pressures that a modern submarine could withstand.

Quote
Q:  Though I have read of deep submergence research vehicles going as deep as 7 miles, how does that compare with (a genuinely unbelieveable) 200,000 miles?


Once you get out into space, moving through space is easy.  There's isn't much gravity around to pull you places you don't want to go.  There isn't any air to slow you down.  Mostly you just get to the speed you want, in the direction you want, and turn of the engines and coast until you need to start worrying about orbital insertions (math for this is pretty simple) and landing.

Just in terms of withstanding the environment: what's so difficult about being in space?  Once you've solved the problem of getting there, staying warm and protecting yourself from radiation seem to be the only issues.

If your only evidence is that 200,000 miles is "genuinely unbelievable", then you don't really have any particular reasons for why it couldn't have been done.

Quote
A:  There are not any submarines in the sky, but there sure are plenty of aircraft in the sea.


Yes, I have noticed this "falling" that things tend to do once they're not actively keeping themselves from doing so anymore.  Fortunately if you do a good enough job of keeping yourself from falling, it eventually becomes no effort at all -- the Earth stops pulling.  All you need is enough energy to get into orbit, and having watched Saturn V footage and seen a space shuttle launch, I have little difficulty believing that they provide enough energy.  (I read not too long ago that the temperatures inside the solid rocket boosters are high enough to boil steel..... how badass is that?)

So there are a lot of aircraft in the sea.  There's lots of aircraft in the air, too -- just because there have been some failures, doesn't make the task impossible.

You need to address the specific technical difficulties in putting a rocket into space.  Why don't we have the technology?  What's required that we lack?
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Moon landings information
« Reply #73 on: July 13, 2006, 12:38:14 AM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
Not quite the engineering post Erasmus had suggested, but never the less revealing:


Not particularly.  I've seen Apollo 13.  I know that we can make movies that look like actually going into space.  That in no way implies that we can't actually go into space.  We make movies that have lots of things that happen in real life -- riding bicycles, fighting with swords, having sex, etc., and I have it on good authority that all those things really do happen in the real world.

As to why a bunch of people who were planning on travelling farther than anybody had ever been before, can you really not think of reasons that they might want to do it for pretend a few times before the do the real thing?  And is it so implausable that they would want to film this little game?

Yeah.  I don't see how the existence of this film is at all revealing.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Moon landings information
« Reply #74 on: August 12, 2006, 03:39:21 AM »
none of you people seem to be aware that they brought back half a tonne of rock over the 6 landings. this stuff is similar to basalt but has minerals that do not exist on earth and several other differences that make it totally different to any earth rocks. (more heavy metals, no volatiles)
this cannot be faked.
there were thousands of people involved in the apollo program. have any hoax-claimers actually bothered to get to know any of them, get involved in astrogeology etc.?
these people claiming hoax are totally ignorant of the science gained from the missions. and why hasnt anyone gone back?
1) 11 was just for politics, to boast to the USSR.
2) the rest were for science but were extremely expensive (obviously) 18, 19, 20 were cancelled. and its all been done anyway. plenty of samples and exploration of the highlands and mares. there are voices calling for more manned missions, but why bother if it is now so much cheaper to send a probe. (clementine, lunar prospector SMART1 orbiters lately)

unmanned space probes now cost less than hollywood movies.
tf?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Moon landings information
« Reply #75 on: August 12, 2006, 09:23:49 AM »
Quote from: "Ezkerraldean"
none of you people seem to be aware that they brought back half a tonne of rock over the 6 landings.


I'm aware that there are rocks in museums that some people claim without real proof are from the moon.  I'm also aware that the dominant theory of the moon's creation is that it was a bit of the Earth that was smashed off by the impact of a large asteroid, so it's contradictory to say that the moon is made of different stuff.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Moon landings information
« Reply #76 on: August 13, 2006, 07:22:50 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"


I'm aware that there are rocks in museums that some people claim without real proof are from the moon.


ive seen this shit, chemically analysed it and seen the stuff tens of times in microscope slides. a fucking A-level in geology tells you that it's something different.
Quote from: "Erasmus"

 I'm also aware that the dominant theory of the moon's creation is that it was a bit of the Earth that was smashed off by the impact of a large asteroid, so it's contradictory to say that the moon is made of different stuff.


er.............. that's vaguely it, assuming you are on about the "giant impact theory".
no its not contradictory. that model predicts perectly what the moon is like. no volatiles - because they all boiled off in the impact. thats why theres no water at all in any moon rocks. more heavy metals since much of the moon's mass originates from the core of the larger impactor.
tf?

Moon landings information
« Reply #77 on: August 13, 2006, 07:58:46 AM »
Okay, so somewhere on the earth there should be a place with no volatiles, as they were boiled off in impact right?
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

Moon landings information
« Reply #78 on: August 13, 2006, 08:12:30 AM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
Okay, so somewhere on the earth there should be a place with no volatiles, as they were boiled off in impact right?



nope
computer models predict that the whole lot remained in the vicinity of the earth/moon system and the earth took most of it back in. moon's gravity is too weak.
tf?

Moon landings information
« Reply #79 on: August 13, 2006, 08:26:33 AM »
hmm, okay.

I really have no opinion (fe or otherwise) about how the moon was created.  I've never looked into it, just have a vague idea of what some other people believe, and I knew this theory was present... another one was that a meteor /comet / whatever flew through the galaxy with just enough forward momentum to get stuck in orbit.  How does that one sit with you?
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

Moon landings information
« Reply #80 on: August 14, 2006, 01:42:54 AM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
hmm, okay.

I really have no opinion (fe or otherwise) about how the moon was created.  I've never looked into it, just have a vague idea of what some other people believe, and I knew this theory was present... another one was that a meteor /comet / whatever flew through the galaxy with just enough forward momentum to get stuck in orbit.  How does that one sit with you?


another planetary body encountered the earth and fell into orbit.
possible, since most models of planetary formation predict loads more planets than currently exist.
like i was on about earlier - the heavy metal / volatiles thing is pretty much the only difference. much of the moons chemistry matches the earths mantle chemistry which again backs up the impact idea since the moon is supposed to have formed from earth mantle material plus the core of the impactor.
tf?

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Moon landings information
« Reply #81 on: August 15, 2006, 11:34:51 AM »
Oh, not you again.
the cake is a lie

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Moon landings information
« Reply #82 on: August 16, 2006, 11:34:16 AM »
Hmm, somehow I posted in the wrong thread. Or did Zntrip post here and it got deleted?
the cake is a lie