|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 14, 2006 17:48:06 GMT -4
One assumes that's a plate and not part of a roll...?
So I gather.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 14, 2006 19:04:08 GMT -4
Thank you for a further demonstration of just how little research you have actually put in to this matter. Now tell us again why we should take you seriously?
Whether you take me seriously or not is your problem. I just took a close look at your signature though, and I have to say I second that.
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Feb 14, 2006 19:07:10 GMT -4
Thank you for a further demonstration of just how little research you have actually put in to this matter. Now tell us again why we should take you seriously?Whether you take me seriously or not is your problem. I just took a close look at your signature though, and I have to say I second that. The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views. Great! At last Stargazer confesses!! Now can we put this sorry thread to bed before he quacks again?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 14, 2006 19:10:42 GMT -4
Great! At last Stargazer confesses!!
What exactly did I "confess", you laughing stock?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 14, 2006 19:14:13 GMT -4
Whether you take me seriously or not is your problem.
No, it's yours. You don't behave in a way that lets reasonable people take you seriously.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Feb 14, 2006 20:56:42 GMT -4
Great! At last Stargazer confesses!!
What exactly did I "confess", you laughing stock? I take it reading is not your strong point? You hear the laughter, and smile...
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 15, 2006 10:06:38 GMT -4
stargazer, do you still claim that was a "row of spotlights" in the Apollo 17 image? Why or why not?
What exactly is "wrong" with the terminator of the Earth in the two images, or between the two images, you mentioned?
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Feb 15, 2006 16:12:17 GMT -4
stargazer, do you still claim that was a "row of spotlights" in the Apollo 17 image? Why or why not? Why do I feel the answer will be nothing more than "because I say so"?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 15, 2006 16:52:58 GMT -4
what is wrong with that earth again? I've never seen a terminator line like that on the moon. Compare to the Salame picture.Or this from Mars Global Surveyor, or this from Galileo (Earth and Moon composited, color and contrast enhanced), or this from Mariner 10 (composited)? What exactly is "wrong" with any of the pictures? Or are the three missions above faked? Did they collectively never go to Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter? BTW, the Jupiter radiation environment is terrifically hostile, worse than anything in Earth orbit. If they can shield electronics against such an environment, why can they not shield humans against the much lesser challenges of a brief Van Allen Belt transit and several days in cislunar space? What exactly is a "searing radiation hell" in terms of radiation types, energies, and fluxes, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Feb 15, 2006 18:08:58 GMT -4
stargazer, do you still claim that was a "row of spotlights" in the Apollo 17 image? Why or why not? Why do I feel the answer will be nothing more than "because I say so"? No-no-no! My money is on "The answer should be obvious to anyone who isn't brainwashed by TPTB into believing this ridiculous Apollo fantasy."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 15, 2006 22:43:03 GMT -4
Nah, he just won't bother answering at all.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 16, 2006 3:34:03 GMT -4
Just reposting something I wrote a few pages ago. Stargazer, I'd appreciate it if you could respond. Cheers.
Stargazer said:
Well, let’s go through some of this old dreck again and see what we can salvage from it.
Rocks: We’ve already explained that the rocks contain characteristics which make it impossible for them to be from the Earth, or for them to have come to the Earth as meteors, or for them to have been retrieved by sample return missions. In a bit more detail…
They can’t be from the Earth. Earth rocks are made of minerals which contain water. Apollo rocks contain no water. There is no mechanism available which would remove only the water from the rocks, and leave the rocks otherwise intact. Secondly, the Apollo rocks have convection currents in them which show that when they were liquid, they were liquid in one-sixth gravity. There’s no mechanism available which allows us to take lava and have it solidify in one-sixth gravity.
They can’t be lunar meteorites. Lunar meteorites were first identified on Earth in the 1980s. Rocks which have passed through the Earth’s atmosphere have their surfaces heated and abraded by the heat generated from passing through the atmosphere at speeds of several kilometres per second. The Apollo rocks don’t show this abrasion. Instead, their surfaces are marked by tiny craters caused by the impact of minuscule dust particles. There’s no mechanism which allows us to bombard rocks with particles that small at speeds that high.
They can’t have been collected by sample return missions. The Soviets brought back about 300 grams of lunar material in three sample return missions. The US brought back 380 kilograms of lunar material in six Apollo missions. The Apollo material included rocks as heavy as 10 kilograms, soil samples, and core samples up to 2 metres long. There’s no mechanism available even today which would allow the collection of such varied material from the Moon. On top of that, many of these samples were photographed in situ, prior to collection. If these photos had instead been taken on a set, placing the rocks on the set would contaminate them, which would have been discovered by scientists working on the rocks.
The only logical explanation left is that people went to the Moon and collected the rocks themselves.
Signals: We’ve already explained that tracking stations recorded signals from space which could only have come from the Moon in real time. They couldn’t have been pre-recorded. They couldn’t have been recorded live on Earth, then transmitted from the Earth to the Moon and back again. They couldn’t have been bounced off a satellite in Earth orbit. In a bit more detail…
Pre-recorded problems: The signals can’t have been pre-recorded, simply because the astronauts talked to Houston about events which were happening on Earth at the time. At the start of each day, Houston read some news to the astronauts while they ate breakfast. Some of this news included sports scores, and among the sports scores were golf scores at the end of a day’s play, and half-time football scores. If these conversations were recorded ahead of time, how did NASA know that Jack Nicklaus would score 68 in the first round of a golf tournament? Or, alternatively, how did NASA make Jack Nicklaus score 68 to match the script?
Transmit from Earth to Moon and back again: Some people have suggested that NASA sent a signal relay system to the Moon, and recorded the conversations live on Earth. Signals were then sent from the Earth to the Moon, bounced off the relay, and back to Houston on Earth. The problem with this is that the signal delay would be twice as long as was actually experienced. If you listen to conversations between Houston and the astronauts on the Moon, you can occasionally hear something said by Houston repeated, about 2.6 seconds later. What’s happening is that the astronaut’s microphone picks up the sounds coming in his earpiece, and transmits it back to Earth. If the astronaut was on the Earth, and the signal being bounced off the Moon, then the voices from Houston would have to travel to the Moon twice by this system, and the delay would be 5.2 seconds. As this doesn’t happen, we know this system can’t have been used.
Satellites in orbit: You’ve suggested that the signals were transmitted using a communications satellite orbiting the Earth. The problem with this is that the tracking stations pointed their dishes at the Moon, and tracked the Moon as it crossed the sky. If NASA used satellites as you suggested, they’d either cross the sky in a few minutes (if in low Earth orbit) or wouldn’t move at all (in geosynchronous orbit). There’s no way a satellite could cross the sky at the same speed as the Moon, unless it was *at* the Moon. But once it’s that far away, we have the problems described in the previous paragraph.
The only logical explanation left is that people went to the Moon and spoke with Houston in real time.
How much harder would you like it?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 19, 2006 22:24:30 GMT -4
Okay, so I'll finally point to some more sources concerning Apollo anomalies. First we have this site here: www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/TeachRes/Movies161/Quoting from that page: " [...] the astronaut on the Moon sees: 1. The Moon always keeps the same face towards the Earth (more or less) all of the time, since the position of the Earth in the Moon's sky is the same with respect to the Lunar horizon of our imaginary astronaut. The Earth neither rises nor sets, but stays fixed in the sky. 2. The Moon is obviously rotating about its axis with respect to the stars, as you see the stars sweep past over the course of the Lunar month. If the moon were not rotating about its axis, you would see the same stars all of the time. 3. The Earth goes through phases like the Moon, but Earth is also obviously rotating about its own axis each day. 4. The Lunar sky is always black and filled with stars, even when the Sun is out, because it has not atmosphere. (Watch what happens about half way through the movie when the Earth is at its "New Earth" phase." Watch this Quicktime movie, it shows what the Apollo 17 astronauts would have seen from the moon looking at the earth. Hint: note the stars. www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/TeachRes/Movies161/ephaseap17.movThen I recommend reading this page: internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo4.htm Look at those "earth" pictures. NiceCatty is absolutely right. Finally take a look at this Apollo 14 picture of the "sun". Not only does it seem to have an atmosphere but also that "sun" is quite huge (remember it should appear about the same size as the moon) and very low above the horizon (about 1,5 diameters above). So I suggest you do a little math. Take the timeline of Apollo 14 (strolling on the "moon" on the 5th and 6th of February 1971), also take the coordinates of the landing site and then figure out where the sun should be standing in the sky and whether that thing in the picture can possibly be the sun. Apollo was a hoax. End of story. Now I'm not going to waste any more time here. Please unsubscribe me from the member list.
|
|
|
Post by petereldergill on Feb 19, 2006 22:48:25 GMT -4
"Now I'm not going to waste any more time here. Please unsubscribe me from the member list."
Yay!
Pete
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Feb 19, 2006 23:01:23 GMT -4
Hey, now that Stargazer is gone, can I say "there are soap dishes smarter than him" without getting myself banned?
I laughed out loud when I saw his "proof" video -- a computer animation generated by a star-finder type software! Um, duh, there are stars in it. My little atlas has names and constellations marked on it. Does that mean those markings are in the skies?
And he finishes by posting a pic of a lens flare. Oops, I meant Planet X.
Good riddance, Stargazer. You were an embarrassment to hoax believers.
|
|