Yeah every one has heard about it, or maybe they haven't givin it a second thought.
My first tip was when I bought a book called Space Travel: A writer's guide to the science of interplanetary and interstellar travel written by Ben Bova and Anthony R. Lewis, about writing science fiction and not sounding like a complete friggen idiot.
The book didnt say a thing about faked moon landings but it did talk about the harsh realities of the solar wind and its radiation and what would happen to a frail living creature outside the protection of Earths atmosphere and magnetic field.
Oh well, read this if you care and let me/us know what you think. The guy seems to know his sh_t.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Full Version: Americans on the Moon?
Thanks Miz, I have been laughing myself silly after reading all of that. And this week I needed one.
Not laughing at you, mind you. There are a lot of otherwise good-hearted folk who have bought into this and other conspiracy theories. It only takes a little fact checking, e.g., Van Allen belts in Google and check out the edu sites for a factual discussion of radiation intensities, risks, penetration and shielding, etc. Once the individual arguments start "failing" the whole thing falls like a house of cards.
But is is fun to have a chuckle.
Thanks.
Not laughing at you, mind you. There are a lot of otherwise good-hearted folk who have bought into this and other conspiracy theories. It only takes a little fact checking, e.g., Van Allen belts in Google and check out the edu sites for a factual discussion of radiation intensities, risks, penetration and shielding, etc. Once the individual arguments start "failing" the whole thing falls like a house of cards.
But is is fun to have a chuckle.
Thanks.
QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Mar 5 2005, 12:03 PM)
Thanks Miz, I have been laughing myself silly after reading all of that. And this week I needed one.
Not laughing at you, mind you. There are a lot of otherwise good-hearted folk who have bought into this and other conspiracy theories. It only takes a little fact checking, e.g., Van Allen belts in Google and check out the edu sites for a factual discussion of radiation intensities, risks, penetration and shielding, etc. Once the individual arguments start "failing" the whole thing falls like a house of cards.
But is is fun to have a chuckle.
Thanks.
[right][snapback]60912[/snapback][/right]
Not laughing at you, mind you. There are a lot of otherwise good-hearted folk who have bought into this and other conspiracy theories. It only takes a little fact checking, e.g., Van Allen belts in Google and check out the edu sites for a factual discussion of radiation intensities, risks, penetration and shielding, etc. Once the individual arguments start "failing" the whole thing falls like a house of cards.
But is is fun to have a chuckle.
Thanks.
[right][snapback]60912[/snapback][/right]
Oh? So you looked at all of the official NASA photos and can explain the shadow anomalies?
To my understanding shadows cast from a light source that was in effect infinite (the sun) would all fall in the same direction regardless of their position or distance from the lens/observer.
Also, since the astronauts did not bring a light source with them onto the surface of the moon, there are pictures of the astronauts with the sun behind them, facing the camera, and yet their front is illuminated.
Also tho footage of Neil Armstrong leaping out of the Lunar Lander... how do you explain that seeing as how he was "the first man on the moon?"
And no, in an enviornment that has a more that 200 degree shift in temperature between light and shadow, you havent excused away the radiation question.
QUOTE(Mizilus @ Mar 7 2005, 12:37 AM)
Oh? So you looked at all of the official NASA photos and can explain the shadow anomalies?
To my understanding shadows cast from a light source that was in effect infinite (the sun) would all fall in the same direction regardless of their position or distance from the lens/observer.
Also, since the astronauts did not bring a light source with them onto the surface of the moon, there are pictures of the astronauts with the sun behind them, facing the camera, and yet their front is illuminated.
Also tho footage of Neil Armstrong leaping out of the Lunar Lander... how do you explain that seeing as how he was "the first man on the moon?"
And no, in an enviornment that has a more that 200 degree shift in temperature between light and shadow, you havent excused away the radiation question.
[right][snapback]61525[/snapback][/right]
To my understanding shadows cast from a light source that was in effect infinite (the sun) would all fall in the same direction regardless of their position or distance from the lens/observer.
Also, since the astronauts did not bring a light source with them onto the surface of the moon, there are pictures of the astronauts with the sun behind them, facing the camera, and yet their front is illuminated.
Also tho footage of Neil Armstrong leaping out of the Lunar Lander... how do you explain that seeing as how he was "the first man on the moon?"
And no, in an enviornment that has a more that 200 degree shift in temperature between light and shadow, you havent excused away the radiation question.
[right][snapback]61525[/snapback][/right]
Ever hear of a "flash?
QUOTE(Bee @ Mar 7 2005, 06:02 AM)
Ever hear of a "flash?
[right][snapback]61567[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]61567[/snapback][/right]
They didnt have one.
QUOTE(Mizilus @ Mar 6 2005, 10:37 PM)
Oh? So you looked at all of the official NASA photos and can explain the shadow anomalies?
To my understanding shadows cast from a light source that was in effect infinite (the sun) would all fall in the same direction regardless of their position or distance from the lens/observer.
Yes they do. However you (and others) are trying to apply this bit a little wrongly. You are dealing with a photograph which takes a three dimensional (heighth, width, and depth) space and portrays, or compresses, it onto a two dimensional space (heighth and width). Discernible objects seen nearest the middle of the field of view (that distance from the lens at which objects will appear in focus, in this case "infinity", though with a fixed lens this actually may have been something more near 30m) will undergo the least distortion in that process those farther away will appear "flatter" and those closest to the near edge of the field of view will undergo the greatest distortion. Field of view is also dependent upon the f-stop of the lens. Thus the farther away the shadows are from the lens, the more they appear to "parallel" the entire scene.
Also, since the astronauts did not bring a light source with them onto the surface of the moon, there are pictures of the astronauts with the sun behind them, facing the camera, and yet their front is illuminated.
Looks like "fill in flash" to me. This does not eliminate shadows from the primary light source (in this case the sun) but reveals details by partially counteracting the shadows cast. Now I know you have said they did not have such - I have seen nothing definitive either way, as to whether they had such on the chest camera or not, but it does seem reasonable as the technology and the need was well known at the time.
Also tho footage of Neil Armstrong leaping out of the Lunar Lander... how do you explain that seeing as how he was "the first man on the moon?"
"Left - Telecast of Neil Armstrong descending the lunar module ladder just prior to taking his first step on the moon. The TV camera automatically deployed after Armstrong pulled on a special ring. As he stepped onto the moon's surface he proclaimed, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" - inadvertently omitting an "a" before "man" and slightly changing the meaning..."
Source: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/apollo11/
And no, in an enviornment that has a more that 200 degree shift in temperature between light and shadow, you havent excused away the radiation question.
You confuse thermal radiation (long wave or infrared) with shorter wave radiation and radioactive particles. Each portion of the spectrum, and RF energy vs radioactive particles, exhibits different properties - easy earthbound example - AM signals (RF radiation in the KHz frequency range) "bounce" or reflect off the Kennelly-Heaviside Layer in the atmosphere - the "skips" we get late at night which allow KOMA (Oklahoma City) to be heard in upper state NY when conditions are right, but FM signals in the MHz range don't bounce but go right on through, also why your AM station can be heard in a freeway tunnel but the FM signal is blocked - AM does not need line-of-sight as FM does to be recieved[right][snapback]61525[/snapback][/right]
To my understanding shadows cast from a light source that was in effect infinite (the sun) would all fall in the same direction regardless of their position or distance from the lens/observer.
Yes they do. However you (and others) are trying to apply this bit a little wrongly. You are dealing with a photograph which takes a three dimensional (heighth, width, and depth) space and portrays, or compresses, it onto a two dimensional space (heighth and width). Discernible objects seen nearest the middle of the field of view (that distance from the lens at which objects will appear in focus, in this case "infinity", though with a fixed lens this actually may have been something more near 30m) will undergo the least distortion in that process those farther away will appear "flatter" and those closest to the near edge of the field of view will undergo the greatest distortion. Field of view is also dependent upon the f-stop of the lens. Thus the farther away the shadows are from the lens, the more they appear to "parallel" the entire scene.
Also, since the astronauts did not bring a light source with them onto the surface of the moon, there are pictures of the astronauts with the sun behind them, facing the camera, and yet their front is illuminated.
Looks like "fill in flash" to me. This does not eliminate shadows from the primary light source (in this case the sun) but reveals details by partially counteracting the shadows cast. Now I know you have said they did not have such - I have seen nothing definitive either way, as to whether they had such on the chest camera or not, but it does seem reasonable as the technology and the need was well known at the time.
Also tho footage of Neil Armstrong leaping out of the Lunar Lander... how do you explain that seeing as how he was "the first man on the moon?"
"Left - Telecast of Neil Armstrong descending the lunar module ladder just prior to taking his first step on the moon. The TV camera automatically deployed after Armstrong pulled on a special ring. As he stepped onto the moon's surface he proclaimed, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" - inadvertently omitting an "a" before "man" and slightly changing the meaning..."
Source: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/apollo11/
And no, in an enviornment that has a more that 200 degree shift in temperature between light and shadow, you havent excused away the radiation question.
You confuse thermal radiation (long wave or infrared) with shorter wave radiation and radioactive particles. Each portion of the spectrum, and RF energy vs radioactive particles, exhibits different properties - easy earthbound example - AM signals (RF radiation in the KHz frequency range) "bounce" or reflect off the Kennelly-Heaviside Layer in the atmosphere - the "skips" we get late at night which allow KOMA (Oklahoma City) to be heard in upper state NY when conditions are right, but FM signals in the MHz range don't bounce but go right on through, also why your AM station can be heard in a freeway tunnel but the FM signal is blocked - AM does not need line-of-sight as FM does to be recieved[right][snapback]61525[/snapback][/right]
My other "favorite" is
"Why aren't there any stars in the photos we see?"
The human eye and brain combination is a wonderful sensor, which a camera and film or even a digital camera and smart memory/image processing, only poorly mimics. The human can perceive patterns in an image that a camera cannot "see." This has been verified many times from space when an astronaut will report viewing X, takes a photo of it, and the photo when developed does not "show" it. This is becuse of the "processing power" of the human brain and the light gathering sensitivity of the human eye. The brain takes in the entirety of the visual spectrum information provided and "sees" the entire image, with some interpolation based upon past experience at seeing of any anomalies to render a sensible image. A camera and film can only take in the amount of light provided, for the time of the shutter speed, as governed by the lens opening (f-stop) and focal plane (focus setting) and capture that image. No other processing, no interpretation.
For a more mundane example, think on this - when you walk out your back door at night from a well lit room, and you look up at a clear night's sky you can immediately see the stars, and any other bright ambient light source near by all in the same "scene." [This is well before you can even develop "night vision (an abundance of rhodopsin in the retina which enhances vision and vision detail, extremely sensitive to light (especially "white light" ) but much less so to "red", it takes about 30 minutes to fully produce in the abscence of white light (which is why pilots use red cockpit illumination at night to retain as much night vision as they can to see outside the cockpit).] Yet if you were to take a camera with a very fast film, that was able to capture the image of the family pet in that same room in great clarity, and step outside and snap a picture of that same night sky, even with the lens at its greatest aperture setting, the image on film would very likely be blank. They are just too dim. To get even the brighter stars on the image, would mean slowing the shutter speed down to a matter of some seconds, and subjecting the film to any light pollution around you which will again tend to obscure the image of what you were after, the stars, being brighter. It is this inability to handle contrasts in real time without glare and image "blooming" that limits the ability to photograph stars in the presence of any bright image or light source and capture both in clear detail. A camera system is just simply not sensitive enough or smart enough to make it happen. It is why the Hubble image lenses and processors sit about two-thirds of the way down the length (43+ feet) at the end of a long tube to eliminate ambient light sources.
As always YMMV.
"Why aren't there any stars in the photos we see?"
The human eye and brain combination is a wonderful sensor, which a camera and film or even a digital camera and smart memory/image processing, only poorly mimics. The human can perceive patterns in an image that a camera cannot "see." This has been verified many times from space when an astronaut will report viewing X, takes a photo of it, and the photo when developed does not "show" it. This is becuse of the "processing power" of the human brain and the light gathering sensitivity of the human eye. The brain takes in the entirety of the visual spectrum information provided and "sees" the entire image, with some interpolation based upon past experience at seeing of any anomalies to render a sensible image. A camera and film can only take in the amount of light provided, for the time of the shutter speed, as governed by the lens opening (f-stop) and focal plane (focus setting) and capture that image. No other processing, no interpretation.
For a more mundane example, think on this - when you walk out your back door at night from a well lit room, and you look up at a clear night's sky you can immediately see the stars, and any other bright ambient light source near by all in the same "scene." [This is well before you can even develop "night vision (an abundance of rhodopsin in the retina which enhances vision and vision detail, extremely sensitive to light (especially "white light" ) but much less so to "red", it takes about 30 minutes to fully produce in the abscence of white light (which is why pilots use red cockpit illumination at night to retain as much night vision as they can to see outside the cockpit).] Yet if you were to take a camera with a very fast film, that was able to capture the image of the family pet in that same room in great clarity, and step outside and snap a picture of that same night sky, even with the lens at its greatest aperture setting, the image on film would very likely be blank. They are just too dim. To get even the brighter stars on the image, would mean slowing the shutter speed down to a matter of some seconds, and subjecting the film to any light pollution around you which will again tend to obscure the image of what you were after, the stars, being brighter. It is this inability to handle contrasts in real time without glare and image "blooming" that limits the ability to photograph stars in the presence of any bright image or light source and capture both in clear detail. A camera system is just simply not sensitive enough or smart enough to make it happen. It is why the Hubble image lenses and processors sit about two-thirds of the way down the length (43+ feet) at the end of a long tube to eliminate ambient light sources.
As always YMMV.
QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Mar 7 2005, 03:31 PM)
My other "favorite" is
"Why aren't there any stars in the photos we see?"
The human eye and brain combination is a wonderful sensor, which a camera and film or even a digital camera and smart memory/image processing, only poorly mimics. The human can percieve patterns in an image that a camera cannot "see." This has been verified many times from space when an astronaut will report viewing X, takes a photo of it, and the photo when developed does not "show" it. This is becuse of the "processing power" of the human brain and the light gathering sensitivity of the human eye. The brain takes in the entirety of the visual spectrum information provided and "sees" the entire image, with some interpolation based upon past experience at seeing of any anomalies to render a sensible image. A camera and film can only take in the amount of light provided, for the time of the shutter speed, as governed by the lens opening (f-stop) and focal plane (focus setting) and capture that image. No other processing, no interpretation.
For a more mundane example, think on this - when you walk out your back door at night from a well lit room, and you look up at a clear night's sky you can immediately see the stars, and any other bright ambient light source near by all in the same "scene." [This well before you can even develop "night vision (an abundance of rhodopsin in the retina which enhances vision and vision detail, extremely sensitive to light (especially "white light" ) but much less so to "red", it takes about 30 minutes to fully produce in th abscence of white light (which is why pilots use red cockpit illumination at night to retain as much night vision as they can to see outside the cockpit.] Yet if you were to take a camera with a very fast film, that was able to capture the image of the family pet in that same room in great clarity, and step outside and snap a picture of that same night sky, even with the lens at its greatest aperture setting, the iamge on film would very likely be blank. They are just too dim. To get even the brighter stars on the image, would mean slowing the shutter speed down to a matter of some seconds, and subjecting the film to any light pollution around you which will again tend to obscure the image of what you were after, the stars, being brighter. It is this inability to handle contrasts in real time without glare and image "blooming" that limits the ability to photograph stars in the presence of any bright image or light source and capture both in clear detail. A camera system is just simply not sensitive enough or smart enough to make it happen. It is why the Hubble image lenses and processors sit about two-thirds of the way down the length (43+ feet) at the end of a long tube to eliminate ambient light sources.
As always YMMV.
[right][snapback]61731[/snapback][/right]
"Why aren't there any stars in the photos we see?"
The human eye and brain combination is a wonderful sensor, which a camera and film or even a digital camera and smart memory/image processing, only poorly mimics. The human can percieve patterns in an image that a camera cannot "see." This has been verified many times from space when an astronaut will report viewing X, takes a photo of it, and the photo when developed does not "show" it. This is becuse of the "processing power" of the human brain and the light gathering sensitivity of the human eye. The brain takes in the entirety of the visual spectrum information provided and "sees" the entire image, with some interpolation based upon past experience at seeing of any anomalies to render a sensible image. A camera and film can only take in the amount of light provided, for the time of the shutter speed, as governed by the lens opening (f-stop) and focal plane (focus setting) and capture that image. No other processing, no interpretation.
For a more mundane example, think on this - when you walk out your back door at night from a well lit room, and you look up at a clear night's sky you can immediately see the stars, and any other bright ambient light source near by all in the same "scene." [This well before you can even develop "night vision (an abundance of rhodopsin in the retina which enhances vision and vision detail, extremely sensitive to light (especially "white light" ) but much less so to "red", it takes about 30 minutes to fully produce in th abscence of white light (which is why pilots use red cockpit illumination at night to retain as much night vision as they can to see outside the cockpit.] Yet if you were to take a camera with a very fast film, that was able to capture the image of the family pet in that same room in great clarity, and step outside and snap a picture of that same night sky, even with the lens at its greatest aperture setting, the iamge on film would very likely be blank. They are just too dim. To get even the brighter stars on the image, would mean slowing the shutter speed down to a matter of some seconds, and subjecting the film to any light pollution around you which will again tend to obscure the image of what you were after, the stars, being brighter. It is this inability to handle contrasts in real time without glare and image "blooming" that limits the ability to photograph stars in the presence of any bright image or light source and capture both in clear detail. A camera system is just simply not sensitive enough or smart enough to make it happen. It is why the Hubble image lenses and processors sit about two-thirds of the way down the length (43+ feet) at the end of a long tube to eliminate ambient light sources.
As always YMMV.
[right][snapback]61731[/snapback][/right]
Exceedingly well-written and informative. Submit this sucker to Wikipedia soonest.
Certainly interesting posts Russ.
The "stars" thing is obvious. Thats why I cant see much in town with my telescope.
Certain other points the guy made are not so easily dismissed.
As much as I want to believe it, it is VERY hard to believe that in the '60's humans walked on the moon.
The "stars" thing is obvious. Thats why I cant see much in town with my telescope.
Certain other points the guy made are not so easily dismissed.
As much as I want to believe it, it is VERY hard to believe that in the '60's humans walked on the moon.
QUOTE(Mizilus @ Mar 6 2005, 09:37 PM)
Oh? So you looked at all of the official NASA photos and can explain the shadow anomalies?
To my understanding shadows cast from a light source that was in effect infinite (the sun) would all fall in the same direction regardless of their position or distance from the lens/observer.
Also, since the astronauts did not bring a light source with them onto the surface of the moon, there are pictures of the astronauts with the sun behind them, facing the camera, and yet their front is illuminated.
Also tho footage of Neil Armstrong leaping out of the Lunar Lander... how do you explain that seeing as how he was "the first man on the moon?"
And no, in an enviornment that has a more that 200 degree shift in temperature between light and shadow, you havent excused away the radiation question.
[right][snapback]61525[/snapback][/right]
To my understanding shadows cast from a light source that was in effect infinite (the sun) would all fall in the same direction regardless of their position or distance from the lens/observer.
Also, since the astronauts did not bring a light source with them onto the surface of the moon, there are pictures of the astronauts with the sun behind them, facing the camera, and yet their front is illuminated.
Also tho footage of Neil Armstrong leaping out of the Lunar Lander... how do you explain that seeing as how he was "the first man on the moon?"
And no, in an enviornment that has a more that 200 degree shift in temperature between light and shadow, you havent excused away the radiation question.
[right][snapback]61525[/snapback][/right]
Rolf. You think maybe they staged a second exit from the lander as a photo-op?
QUOTE(Mizilus @ Mar 10 2005, 01:08 PM)
Certainly interesting posts Russ.
The "stars" thing is obvious. Thats why I cant see much in town with my telescope.
Certain other points the guy made are not so easily dismissed.
As much as I want to believe it, it is VERY hard to believe that in the '60's humans walked on the moon.
[right][snapback]62969[/snapback][/right]
The "stars" thing is obvious. Thats why I cant see much in town with my telescope.
Certain other points the guy made are not so easily dismissed.
As much as I want to believe it, it is VERY hard to believe that in the '60's humans walked on the moon.
[right][snapback]62969[/snapback][/right]
Miz
I was in college at the Air Force Academy when it all went up. Watched it live.
Had been glued to the tube/Weekly Reader/newspaper/magazines, etc., about things "space" since Sputnik.
Let me tell you what I find hard to believe although I fully understand how and and why it happened:
We aren't still there on the Moon and already on Mars today. It isn't a technology problem. It was that for so long NASA's only real goal was to make JFK's dream a reality. Once achieved they lost focus, they lost vision, they lost will. And as they did, so did the US populace. The last few Apollos were canceled. The Shuttle ( a joke - we'd been to the Moon, we'd let SkyLab fall, and now we were going to be enthralled with brief visits to Low Earth Orbit (LEO)? With nothing else planned?!?!), after it's initial set of launches became so "routine" that launches became only something mentioned on the 6 O'Clock news, not televised, and only things like the tragic Challenger and Columbia accidents have made any real news, and even that has been a negative and both of those have provided fodder for the "Kill NASA" crowds.
Humankind will move off this birthplanet to the Solar System and beyond, I believe it. What I am not sure of is that the USA will have any part in that eventuality except as a footnote in the history "First to..." We lack, to this day, the will to do.
YMMV.
QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Mar 10 2005, 12:50 PM)
Miz
I was in college at the Air Force Academy when it all went up. Watched it live.
Had been glued to the tube/Weekly Reader/newspaper/magazines, etc., about things "space" since Sputnik.
Let me tell you what I find hard to believe although I fully understand how and and why it happened:
We aren't still there on the Moon and already on Mars today. It isn't a technology problem. It was that for so long NASA's only real goal was to make JFK's dream a reality. Once achieved they lost focus, they lost vision, they lost will. And as they did, so did the US populace. The last few Apollos were canceled. The Shuttle ( a joke - we'd been to the Moon, we'd let SkyLab fall, and now we were going to be enthralled with brief visits to Low Earth Orbit (LEO)? With nothing else planned?!?!), after it's initial set of launches became so "routine" that launches became only something mentioned on the 6 O'Clock news, not televised, and only things like the tragic Challenger and Columbia accidents have made any real news, and even that has been a negative and both of those have provided fodder for the "Kill NASA" crowds.
Humankind will move off this birthplanet to the Solar System and beyond, I believe it. What I am not sure of is that the USA will have any part in that eventuality except as a footnote in the history "First to..." We lack, to this day, the will to do.
YMMV.
[right][snapback]62988[/snapback][/right]
I was in college at the Air Force Academy when it all went up. Watched it live.
Had been glued to the tube/Weekly Reader/newspaper/magazines, etc., about things "space" since Sputnik.
Let me tell you what I find hard to believe although I fully understand how and and why it happened:
We aren't still there on the Moon and already on Mars today. It isn't a technology problem. It was that for so long NASA's only real goal was to make JFK's dream a reality. Once achieved they lost focus, they lost vision, they lost will. And as they did, so did the US populace. The last few Apollos were canceled. The Shuttle ( a joke - we'd been to the Moon, we'd let SkyLab fall, and now we were going to be enthralled with brief visits to Low Earth Orbit (LEO)? With nothing else planned?!?!), after it's initial set of launches became so "routine" that launches became only something mentioned on the 6 O'Clock news, not televised, and only things like the tragic Challenger and Columbia accidents have made any real news, and even that has been a negative and both of those have provided fodder for the "Kill NASA" crowds.
Humankind will move off this birthplanet to the Solar System and beyond, I believe it. What I am not sure of is that the USA will have any part in that eventuality except as a footnote in the history "First to..." We lack, to this day, the will to do.
YMMV.
[right][snapback]62988[/snapback][/right]
I agree. I've grown up watching space stuff. I was a pipsqueak when we first "went to the moon" but I can remember seeing it on tv. That and footage of the Viet Nam war. If we actually went to the moon then everything thing since has been a complete farce.
These days we have the shuttle (yes, a joke) and thats about it. We coudnt go out of LEO to save our lives if we had to, and that could be a very real possibility. I have watched all of these probes to Mars and beyond, and as much as I like astronomy, there is very little useful data gained. If you ask me every last payload that has left the immediate vicinity of mother Earth should have been carrying supplies and equipment for first a base on the Moon and then to Mars. All this geology and photography going on is a waste of time/money BS. Plenty of time for all of that sh_t once we get there.
I still have a real hard time believing that we went in the '60's. Just doesnt seem possible. Hell, we had a hell of a time even getting our rockets to perform while the Russkies had sputnik beeping around the world and Gregarin was making history.
Me: And no, in an enviornment that has a more that 200 degree shift in temperature between light and shadow, you havent excused away the radiation question.
Russ:You confuse thermal radiation (long wave or infrared) with shorter wave radiation and radioactive particles. Each portion of the spectrum, and RF energy vs radioactive particles, exhibits different properties - easy earthbound example - AM signals (RF radiation in the KHz frequency range) "bounce" or reflect off the Kennelly-Heaviside Layer in the atmosphere - the "skips" we get late at night which allow KOMA (Oklahoma City) to be heard in upper state NY when conditions are right, but FM signals in the MHz range don't bounce but go right on through, also why your AM station can be heard in a freeway tunnel but the FM signal is blocked - AM does not need line-of-sight as FM does to be recieved
What I was talking about was the film. It should have exhibited spots from where radiation penetrated the camera body and affected the film.
Also, when I was talking about temperature shifts (radical) I found it interesting that that website (initial post) mentioned the drastic change in temperature between light and shadow. What the hell kind of emulsion did that camera have to go from near freezing to near boiling in just a few seconds? How did those images survive that kind of treatment?
Russ:You confuse thermal radiation (long wave or infrared) with shorter wave radiation and radioactive particles. Each portion of the spectrum, and RF energy vs radioactive particles, exhibits different properties - easy earthbound example - AM signals (RF radiation in the KHz frequency range) "bounce" or reflect off the Kennelly-Heaviside Layer in the atmosphere - the "skips" we get late at night which allow KOMA (Oklahoma City) to be heard in upper state NY when conditions are right, but FM signals in the MHz range don't bounce but go right on through, also why your AM station can be heard in a freeway tunnel but the FM signal is blocked - AM does not need line-of-sight as FM does to be recieved
What I was talking about was the film. It should have exhibited spots from where radiation penetrated the camera body and affected the film.
Also, when I was talking about temperature shifts (radical) I found it interesting that that website (initial post) mentioned the drastic change in temperature between light and shadow. What the hell kind of emulsion did that camera have to go from near freezing to near boiling in just a few seconds? How did those images survive that kind of treatment?
QUOTE(Human Ills @ Mar 10 2005, 12:29 PM)
Rolf. You think maybe they staged a second exit from the lander as a photo-op?
[right][snapback]62978[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]62978[/snapback][/right]
No. I'm trying to figure out if from start to finish it was phony as hell.
Far easier (and WAAAAAY cheaper) to send a rocket into LEO and fake the rest in Hollywood (thereby freeing up BILLIONS for SOMETHING else) than to play catch up and get it all right in the first shot.
Russ said: "It only takes a little fact checking, e.g., Van Allen belts in Google and check out the edu sites for a factual discussion of radiation intensities, risks, penetration and shielding, etc. Once the individual arguments start "failing" the whole thing falls like a house of cards. "
(From the Book Space Travel previously mentioned)
Pg 46 ch 4 Living and Working in Space
(snip)
by ordinary terrestrial standards the solar wind is a vacuum of about ten particles per cubic inch. If you could stand naked in cislunar space your skin would not feel any wind at all. Yet those particles carry tremendous energy on the atomic level, especially the protons, which are nearly 2000 times more massive than the electrons. You would,nt feel the solar wind, but it would fry you in moments with its lethal radiation.
(snip)
The solar wind presses on our geomagnetosphere, flattening it on the sunward side and streatching out the night side into an enormous "tail" that reaches past the orbit of the Moon.
pg 51 (snip)
The Apollo missions to the moon left the protection of our geomagnetosphere's umbrella far behind them. If a solar flare had erupted during an Apollo mission the astronauts may well have been killed.
Although solar flares are not entirely predictable, (lol miz) they do tend to occur when there is lots of sunspot activity on the sun. NASA was able to time the Apollo flights at periods when flares were unlikely.
Hmmm...Well never mind shielding-- because none of the Apollo spacecraft had any to my knowledge--and penetration-- since cosmic rays can penetrate miles of solid ground-- we all know that there was no way to shield these cameras from being affected by radiation and the film should show signs of that. Nowadays everything is digital, a signal, so images are not affected.
I dunno.. I havent come to any conclusions as of yet.
(From the Book Space Travel previously mentioned)
Pg 46 ch 4 Living and Working in Space
(snip)
by ordinary terrestrial standards the solar wind is a vacuum of about ten particles per cubic inch. If you could stand naked in cislunar space your skin would not feel any wind at all. Yet those particles carry tremendous energy on the atomic level, especially the protons, which are nearly 2000 times more massive than the electrons. You would,nt feel the solar wind, but it would fry you in moments with its lethal radiation.
(snip)
The solar wind presses on our geomagnetosphere, flattening it on the sunward side and streatching out the night side into an enormous "tail" that reaches past the orbit of the Moon.
pg 51 (snip)
The Apollo missions to the moon left the protection of our geomagnetosphere's umbrella far behind them. If a solar flare had erupted during an Apollo mission the astronauts may well have been killed.
Although solar flares are not entirely predictable, (lol miz) they do tend to occur when there is lots of sunspot activity on the sun. NASA was able to time the Apollo flights at periods when flares were unlikely.
Hmmm...Well never mind shielding-- because none of the Apollo spacecraft had any to my knowledge--and penetration-- since cosmic rays can penetrate miles of solid ground-- we all know that there was no way to shield these cameras from being affected by radiation and the film should show signs of that. Nowadays everything is digital, a signal, so images are not affected.
I dunno.. I havent come to any conclusions as of yet.
Miz
Here's a site that may address your concerns. One of its authors is a Richard C. Hoagland, himself a "conspiracy" theorist, and truly no friend of NASA, self-declared, but who is also very convinced the conspiracy theories regarding the Appollo missions are false. Take it for what it is worth. I don't buy everything he puts forth either, but it is a testament from an "enemy" of NASA, not a supporter.
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
See also: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...1/a11-hass.html, especially for the "crosshairs" discussion. The explanation is very different from that presented on the hoax site.
And also this site: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
Lastly, you wrote:
'...Hmmm...Well never mind shielding-- because none of the Apollo spacecraft had any to my knowledge--and penetration-- since cosmic rays can penetrate miles of solid ground-- we all know that there was no way to shield these cameras from being affected by radiation and the film should show signs of that. Nowadays everything is digital, a signal, so images are not affected...."
You might ask yourself if cosmic rays are so powerful they can be detected under miles of ground (actually I think the only experiments so done were at one mile) how come your film on the surface does not show the effects? Answer: becuse while they exist, the "opportunity" for such visible impact is exceedingly small - we are talking atomic and subatomic particles here, in which we are not literally awash. In order for scientists to gain such evedence they must construct their experiments to maximize the chances of catching the particles usually in a so-called cloud chamber or other specifically sensitive medium. For a discussion of the amount of actual radiation the Appollo astronauts recieved and the shielding provided on their flights see:
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/cf/exp_de...current_string=
And also:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm
At this point I am finished with the topic and leave you to your investigations. I remain convinced we went and fully saddened we have not kept reaching for the stars.
YMMV.
Here's a site that may address your concerns. One of its authors is a Richard C. Hoagland, himself a "conspiracy" theorist, and truly no friend of NASA, self-declared, but who is also very convinced the conspiracy theories regarding the Appollo missions are false. Take it for what it is worth. I don't buy everything he puts forth either, but it is a testament from an "enemy" of NASA, not a supporter.
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
See also: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...1/a11-hass.html, especially for the "crosshairs" discussion. The explanation is very different from that presented on the hoax site.
And also this site: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
Lastly, you wrote:
'...Hmmm...Well never mind shielding-- because none of the Apollo spacecraft had any to my knowledge--and penetration-- since cosmic rays can penetrate miles of solid ground-- we all know that there was no way to shield these cameras from being affected by radiation and the film should show signs of that. Nowadays everything is digital, a signal, so images are not affected...."
You might ask yourself if cosmic rays are so powerful they can be detected under miles of ground (actually I think the only experiments so done were at one mile) how come your film on the surface does not show the effects? Answer: becuse while they exist, the "opportunity" for such visible impact is exceedingly small - we are talking atomic and subatomic particles here, in which we are not literally awash. In order for scientists to gain such evedence they must construct their experiments to maximize the chances of catching the particles usually in a so-called cloud chamber or other specifically sensitive medium. For a discussion of the amount of actual radiation the Appollo astronauts recieved and the shielding provided on their flights see:
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/cf/exp_de...current_string=
And also:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm
At this point I am finished with the topic and leave you to your investigations. I remain convinced we went and fully saddened we have not kept reaching for the stars.
YMMV.
QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Mar 11 2005, 03:47 PM)
Miz
Here's a site that may address your concerns. One of its authors is a Richard C. Hoagland, himself a "conspiracy" theorist, and truly no friend of NASA, self-declared, but who is also very convinced the conspiracy theories regarding the Appollo missions are false. Take it for what it is worth. I don't buy everything he puts forth either, but it is a testament from an "enemy" of NASA, not a supporter.
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
See also: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...1/a11-hass.html, especially for the "crosshairs" discussion. The explanation is very different from that presented on the hoax site.
And also this site: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
Lastly, you wrote:
'...Hmmm...Well never mind shielding-- because none of the Apollo spacecraft had any to my knowledge--and penetration-- since cosmic rays can penetrate miles of solid ground-- we all know that there was no way to shield these cameras from being affected by radiation and the film should show signs of that. Nowadays everything is digital, a signal, so images are not affected...."
You might ask yourself if cosmic rays are so powerful they can be detected under miles of ground (actually I think the only experiments so done were at one mile) how come your film on the surface does not show the effects? Answer: becuse while they exist, the "opportunity" for such visible impact is exceedingly small - we are talking atomic and subatomic particles here, in which we are not literally awash. In order for scientists to gain such evedence they must construct their experiments to maximize the chances of catching the particles usually in a so-called cloud chamber or other specifically sensitive medium. For a discussion of the amount of actual radiation the Appollo astronauts recieved and the shielding provided on their flights see:
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/cf/exp_de...current_string=
And also:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm
At this point I am finished with the topic and leave you to your investigations. I remain convinced we went and fully saddened we have not kept reaching for the stars.
YMMV.
[right][snapback]63441[/snapback][/right]
Here's a site that may address your concerns. One of its authors is a Richard C. Hoagland, himself a "conspiracy" theorist, and truly no friend of NASA, self-declared, but who is also very convinced the conspiracy theories regarding the Appollo missions are false. Take it for what it is worth. I don't buy everything he puts forth either, but it is a testament from an "enemy" of NASA, not a supporter.
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
See also: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...1/a11-hass.html, especially for the "crosshairs" discussion. The explanation is very different from that presented on the hoax site.
And also this site: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
Lastly, you wrote:
'...Hmmm...Well never mind shielding-- because none of the Apollo spacecraft had any to my knowledge--and penetration-- since cosmic rays can penetrate miles of solid ground-- we all know that there was no way to shield these cameras from being affected by radiation and the film should show signs of that. Nowadays everything is digital, a signal, so images are not affected...."
You might ask yourself if cosmic rays are so powerful they can be detected under miles of ground (actually I think the only experiments so done were at one mile) how come your film on the surface does not show the effects? Answer: becuse while they exist, the "opportunity" for such visible impact is exceedingly small - we are talking atomic and subatomic particles here, in which we are not literally awash. In order for scientists to gain such evedence they must construct their experiments to maximize the chances of catching the particles usually in a so-called cloud chamber or other specifically sensitive medium. For a discussion of the amount of actual radiation the Appollo astronauts recieved and the shielding provided on their flights see:
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/cf/exp_de...current_string=
And also:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm
At this point I am finished with the topic and leave you to your investigations. I remain convinced we went and fully saddened we have not kept reaching for the stars.
YMMV.
[right][snapback]63441[/snapback][/right]
Save the Hubell
dang it!
QUOTE(Bee @ Mar 11 2005, 08:56 PM)
Save the Hubell
dang it!
[right][snapback]63602[/snapback][/right]
dang it!
[right][snapback]63602[/snapback][/right]
SAVE THE HUBBLE!!!
A few images taken by Hubble~
Hubbel is a waste of money. Now.
Great science knowledge...Thanks.
Notice conspiracy theories are out...debunked.... Out...debunked.
Conspiracy theory:
A week prior to Senator Wellstone's airplane crash there was a private jet running landing practices at our local airport…the local newspaper wrote a brief article regarding this private plane. Taking so many landing runs…plus the testing for approaches from different altitudes…I was always waiting for a photo and information regarding the MN private plane to see if there were any similarities…So conspiracy theories. Always interesting...
Notice conspiracy theories are out...debunked.... Out...debunked.
Conspiracy theory:
A week prior to Senator Wellstone's airplane crash there was a private jet running landing practices at our local airport…the local newspaper wrote a brief article regarding this private plane. Taking so many landing runs…plus the testing for approaches from different altitudes…I was always waiting for a photo and information regarding the MN private plane to see if there were any similarities…So conspiracy theories. Always interesting...
That is what they call practicing touch and go landings. You should have got the plane's tail number and track it down and find out who the student pilot was doing that.
Tail number... OK
Thanks!
Thanks!
csh
If you are really concerned about the Wellstone accident see : http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/uscongress/a/wellstonentsb.htm
In addition the NTSB report (the link's in the article) has a great chart (Figure 3 on Page 6) depicting the aircraft's flight path profile and settings (I had posted it back in the old CSPAN board days, can't do it here as it is part of a pdf document and not an image with a URL. In that chart, as an ex-flyer, it is readily apparent to me that the crew had set up for a descent (reduced power, maintaining airspeed because of the descent, still in a less than full landing configuration), when they levelled out and concentrated on seeing the runway environment without changing the previous power and configuration settings from the descent. This will cause you to rapidly lose airspeed. In other words, the crew fixated on finding the runway instead of paying attention to aircraft control, entered an irrecoverable stall, and crashed.
The Air Force has three basic rules for handling any emergency situation that apply without regard to the actual cause of the malfunction. Rule #1 is "Maintain aircraft control." In other words, whatever's wrong your first duty is to fly the plane and not get so involved with the problem that you make things worse by not flying the thing. These guys in the charter either never learned or never applied that basic truism.
BTW the other two general rules are:
2. Analyze the situation and take appropriate action.
3. Land as soon as conditions permit.
The point they drill home to you in pilot training is never forget, ignore, or stop paying attention to rule number 1. The rest of the procedures if not followed probably will not kill you. But violating rule number one - will.
If you are really concerned about the Wellstone accident see : http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/uscongress/a/wellstonentsb.htm
In addition the NTSB report (the link's in the article) has a great chart (Figure 3 on Page 6) depicting the aircraft's flight path profile and settings (I had posted it back in the old CSPAN board days, can't do it here as it is part of a pdf document and not an image with a URL. In that chart, as an ex-flyer, it is readily apparent to me that the crew had set up for a descent (reduced power, maintaining airspeed because of the descent, still in a less than full landing configuration), when they levelled out and concentrated on seeing the runway environment without changing the previous power and configuration settings from the descent. This will cause you to rapidly lose airspeed. In other words, the crew fixated on finding the runway instead of paying attention to aircraft control, entered an irrecoverable stall, and crashed.
The Air Force has three basic rules for handling any emergency situation that apply without regard to the actual cause of the malfunction. Rule #1 is "Maintain aircraft control." In other words, whatever's wrong your first duty is to fly the plane and not get so involved with the problem that you make things worse by not flying the thing. These guys in the charter either never learned or never applied that basic truism.
BTW the other two general rules are:
2. Analyze the situation and take appropriate action.
3. Land as soon as conditions permit.
The point they drill home to you in pilot training is never forget, ignore, or stop paying attention to rule number 1. The rest of the procedures if not followed probably will not kill you. But violating rule number one - will.
Thank-You Russ Logan
Reading the number one rule for flying was important
Although I new a bomber during the VNWar I forgot that he did talk alittle about that...rule...when a heat missle was coming down the trail....
I never think of a pilot as panicking
thanks again
Reading the number one rule for flying was important
Although I new a bomber during the VNWar I forgot that he did talk alittle about that...rule...when a heat missle was coming down the trail....
I never think of a pilot as panicking
thanks again
I like the idea of a space station on the moon.
I was thinking that was part of the NASA future
Imagine….
A large sling shot apparatus on the moon.
I wonder if there are any physicists who can calculate those numbers…
I was thinking that was part of the NASA future
Imagine….
A large sling shot apparatus on the moon.
I wonder if there are any physicists who can calculate those numbers…
Saw the latest Penn & Teller Bullsh_t last night (the topic was conspiracy theories) and it reminded me of this thread.
Of course as usual they find the most extreme whack-jobs to ridicule and gloss over people who actually have an argument, but it sure is funny as hell. One of them was some guy named "Renee" who is totally convinced that no human being has ever set foot on the moon. He was a real winner.
The other "conspiracy theories" had to do with 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination. I just love listening to Penn shred on freaks and con artists.
Of course as usual they find the most extreme whack-jobs to ridicule and gloss over people who actually have an argument, but it sure is funny as hell. One of them was some guy named "Renee" who is totally convinced that no human being has ever set foot on the moon. He was a real winner.
The other "conspiracy theories" had to do with 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination. I just love listening to Penn shred on freaks and con artists.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.