|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 29, 2006 20:21:38 GMT -4
Were any coronagraph images taken over the course of the Apollo missions?Apollo 11 did take images of the solar corona They are here From what I understand the missing images are just totally black, so haven't been scanned and added.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 29, 2006 22:32:49 GMT -4
Obviously thems wuz th' pitchers with them thar saucer people in 'em!
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 29, 2006 23:28:42 GMT -4
Heh, yeah I said the same thing for another photo, well that others were ones with props and things so they removed them, but then, I think Jay, hauled up the actual image. It's in one of these threads somewhere around here.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 30, 2006 3:09:46 GMT -4
Oops. Actually, I was thinking more Clementine. Serves me right for not refreshing my memory!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 30, 2006 9:26:46 GMT -4
A 12 even had the luxury of one that was broken.
Hardly a luxury. It broke and they had no spare, so we got no decent television from the lunar surface on that occasion.
Astronomical purposes, isn't that what this was all about,
In as much as the Moon is an astronomical object, yes. But the whole purpose of Apollo was to go to and study the Moon.
visiting a body in space and not bothering to image other bodies from a new perspective is crazy
But what new perspective? The only thing you see from a different perspective from the Moon is the Earth, and they took plenty of pictures of that throughout. The Moon is only 250,000 miles away. The nearest celestial object is about 20,000,000 miles away at its closest approach. Stars, planets, nebulae will all look just the same from the Moon as they do from Earth, at least in terms of the imagery that can be taken with the instrumants they could take on the spacecraft. Look at the UV camera from Apollo 16: it is not a trivial piece of equipment that can just be added to a flight on a whim.
Is there any Televised images of the Earth from the Lunar surface? How about images of the Stars, not distant stars I mean the one that was dictating the life and death situation for the Astronauts. Were any coronagraph images taken over the course of the Apollo missions?
If you don't know the answer to those questions what possible business do you have deciding if the record is authentic or not? See, this is why we often get so frustrated in these discussions: it so often becomes apparent that you and others who say it was all faked have hardly even scratched the surface when it comes to researching the available evidence. Yet, on the back of such poor levels of information, you presume to pass judgement on the veracity of the entire program and everyone involved.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Nov 30, 2006 10:05:00 GMT -4
I don't really have a problem with the program, I have a problem with zealots like yourself. I fully understand that they did something, it was on Television. Your frustration stems from your absolute faith and acceptance of the written word from NASA. I'm happy. ;D The first question has been answered, the results can be seen, if you don't wish to answer the second question. Too bad.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 30, 2006 10:25:59 GMT -4
What makes you think we have no more than "absolute faith and acceptance of the written word from NASA"? The reality of Apollo is backed up by all the scientific work done using Apollo returned samples and other data. Thousands of investigations have been carried out by scientists from all over the world without any evidence of fakery being unearthed. Moreover, the Apollo results have stood comparison with subsequent discoveries such as the Russian samples, lunar meteorites and the Clementine and Lunar prospector results. Lunar science looks very different now from what it was before Apollo, to the extent that any faker would have had to have produced a whole self-consistent branch of science from scratch.
Geologists have said that the Apollo samples are not terrestial, are not lunar meteorites, could not have been collected by unmanned probes and are unfakeable. What qualifications do you have to claim that they are wrong?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Nov 30, 2006 10:55:31 GMT -4
Scientists have said the earth was flat and that a little tobacco smoke is good for the ozone layer. For a price.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 30, 2006 11:00:56 GMT -4
Your frustration stems from your absolute faith and acceptance of the written word from NASA.
Why do you find it so hard to understand that NASA is NOT the sole source of iformation about space and science relating to it?
There is no 'absolute faith and acceptance' of NASA's word in a single one of my arguments. I accept NASA's version of events because I am familiar enough with the various aspects of science that relate to it to know what I am talking about and how to critically analyse things.
If simply agreeing that NASA is telling the truth is enough to be considered a zealot by some ill-educated, uninformed persons then so be it.
if you don't wish to answer the second question. Too bad.
I'll happily answer the question. The answer is yes, they did take television of the Earth and photographed the solar corona. My problem lies in the fact that you had to ask it, despite your obvious conclusions. Which leads me to wonder what your conclusion is based on when you are evidently seriously lacking in the necessary facts to back it up.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 30, 2006 11:04:49 GMT -4
Scientists have said the earth was flat and that a little tobacco smoke is good for the ozone layer. For a price.
Let's put this in perspective to validate this criticism, shall we? Some scientists said what you say they said, others disagreed and disagreed vehemently.
There is not one qualified geologist among the hundreds or thousands who have examined the lunar samples that disagrees that they came from the Moon and were collected exactly as advertised.
And just because some people have been bribed to distort facts and maintain an untruth does not mean everyone is doing it. There is a world of difference between 'it could have been' and 'it was'. What EVIDENCE do you have that says the geologists are wrong/perpetuating a falsehood?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 30, 2006 11:25:18 GMT -4
Scientists have said the earth was flat and that a little tobacco smoke is good for the ozone layer. For a price. So you wave away all the scientific evidence for Apollo on the basis that a scientist can occasionally be bribed to give a dishonest opinion? On that basis, the whole Apollo hoax argument collapses because Bart Sibrel and Jack White use dishonest techniques to doctor the evidence they present.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 30, 2006 11:34:30 GMT -4
Your frustration stems from your absolute faith and acceptance of the written word from NASA. Nope. I've concluded NASA is telling the truth about Apollo based upon a multitude of sources both inside and outside of NASA, as well as applying my engineering and science expertise to verify the plausibility of NASA's claims. Ever aspect of Apollo I've studied has held up to the closest scrutiny. There is simply no reason to doubt its authenticity. The only possible way a sane and rational person can doubt Apollo is by being grossly ignorant of the program details and the underlying science.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 30, 2006 11:45:21 GMT -4
I don't really have a problem with the program,
Of course you do. Your strenuous effort to deny the accomplishment of one of humanity's longest-held dreams speaks for itself.
I have a problem with zealots like yourself.
Projection noted. Your conclusions are fixed; your opinions serve as facts. As a practicing aerospace engineer, I don't have that luxury.
I fully understand that they did something, it was on Television.
TV is not the Alpha and Omega of understanding - anymore than the Internet is.
Your frustration stems from your absolute faith and acceptance of the written word from NASA. I'm happy.
I'm happy, too, because among other things I'm fortunate enough to get paid to work on space stuff. Of course, that requires me to have relevant education and expertise - which has allowed me to examine the Apollo record and find it plausible in every respect I've considered. I've also been fortunate enough to work with Apollo engineers and assess their competence firsthand.
No "faith", no "absolute acceptance". But again, projection duly noted.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 30, 2006 15:23:55 GMT -4
How sad to be convinced (or not convinced) because of TV -- or a smattering of photographs, for that matter (as a "smattering" is all of the Apollo photographic record most HB's ever see).
I am convinced because what NASA claims to have done meets science as I understand it. It COULD have been done that way (the science stands up and the engineering was within the skills of the time), and observation (radio contacts, sighting by astronomers, samples returned, ad nas) support that it WAS done that way.
On the obverse, it MIGHT have been faked but, as yet, I have never heard a description of HOW the fake was done that agrees with science as I know it and the technical capabilities of the time. There is zero compelling reason to follow that trail; no more reason for me to think the landings were faked than to think Canada is a hoax.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Nov 30, 2006 18:54:05 GMT -4
Well it's self perpetuating when any new data from something like Clementine is calibrated with Apollo data. What are they going to do when it turns out the the Procellarum KREEP Terrane province is as big as a football field in the future.
|
|