|
Post by Count Zero on Dec 17, 2005 21:31:30 GMT -4
Also, the Earth elevation is much too low. The coordinates of the landing site were 20.2 N, 30.8E. The libration on that day was near the maximum, about -7deg (the Moon was near the perigee). This means that, as the area around Mare Crisium 'moved' towards the center by that angle, about 7 deg should be added to the Earth elevation. So the Earth seen from the Taurus-Littrow Valley where Apollo 17 landed was very high, more than 65 deg above the horizon, not like the pictures show, about 30 deg. Where the heck are you getting these numbers? Without libration, the Earth would be 53.2 degrees off the horizon. Assuming the libration was due west, this would increase the elevation to 58.8 degrees. [Edited to correct: The Moon's equator is tilted 6.67 degrees to its orbital plane so this is added to the latitude. The calculated altitude with libration is 54.1 degrees.] The camera is clearly tilted sideways and upwards in AS17-134-20384 & AS17-134-20387. In 384, the horizon is not visible. In 387, we can see the South Massif and just a little bit of the valley floor in the lower-right corner. If we assume that the valley floor is the "horizon", then the azimuth point where the elevation should be measured can be extrapolated to a point outside the lower edge of the frame, just below Cernan's elbow. The camera's field of view (both horizontally and vertically - it's a square image) is 53.5 degrees. This provides a ruler. Using a right angle and dividers, I measure the valley floor to the Earth as between 50 and 55 degrees. There's some uncertainty, because other pictures on that roll suggest that the valley floor rises somewhat before it gets to the mountains. The measured elevation is right in the ballpark of the calculated values, and nowhere near the "30 degrees" you cited. I'll let someone who's better at geometry address the terminator angle question.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Dec 17, 2005 18:26:33 GMT -4
Wait a minute! Are you telling me it is just a film and not a documentary as was hinted at in the opening sequence? :-) Please don't tell me that Criswell is really a charlatan. His predictions seemed so real... ) "One thing's for sure: Inspector Clay is dead - murdered - and somebody's responsible!"
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Dec 17, 2005 18:22:27 GMT -4
Oh... please, please, please tell me this is archived somewhere. ;D It is, but it requires a bit of digging to find it. Go to the Fox Forum advanced search page and do the following: 1. Enter "bartwinfield" into the "From:" field 2. Change the "Updated from:" field to "Beginning of time" 3. Change "Order by" to "Oldest first" This will show you all of the posts he made, but not the replies. I guess you could try a keyword search for "moon hoax" or "conspiracy theory". On the upper right of each post is a message number such as "164.34 in reply to 164.1". If you click on the numbers, it takes you to the thread, of which there were several.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Dec 17, 2005 17:06:25 GMT -4
The funny thing with me is, that although I was always into the reality of the lunar missions, Sibrel et al managed at the outset to place a degree of scepticism in my mind. I therefore decided to absorb as much info as my stupid, stupid mind would allow and educate myself of the nuances of the project. This in turn convinced me more and more of the overwhelming evidence of the landings. Indeed my interest alone in how the video was transmitted help solidify my position. Dwight ps anyone catch the film reference in the above paragraph? :-) Of course, I caught you quoting it once before. One of the fun details in that particular scene was the round construction saw-horse flashy light-thing on the flying saucer's control table... er, "panel."
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 26, 2006 21:09:52 GMT -4
Look at the anntena from the back pack. No white attentana appears on the dune buggy shot posted and the pics are taken on the same mission...lol Nooo, This picture is from Apollo 11, which did not include a rover. The other picture was taken three-and-a-half years and six missions later, on Apollo 17.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 23, 2006 19:51:57 GMT -4
Seriously, are you really that stupid? There was one camera per mission... if one astronaut is using it then the other won't have one. Actually, on Apollo 11 they intentionally left the other camera in the LM. IIRC, it didn't have the silver coating for the Lunar surface. The on other missions both astronauts carried cameras to help with the documentation.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Dec 2, 2005 18:43:46 GMT -4
Individually, none of these HBs amount to anything. But the collective and cumulative effect of HB -ism in particular and CT-ism in general is to corrode the public's ability to think rationally and to damage the belief that any human enterprise can have elements of the grand and noble. And that, my friend, is a crime. HBs often quote some variation on the phrase, "If you tell a lie often enough, it will become the truth." They say this with the assumption that it's the Evil Government TM that "always" does the lying. Ironically, in so many discussions about conspiracies, it is the CTs who are willfully repeating untruths.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 25, 2005 12:22:36 GMT -4
Let the panels "slide under" the spacecraft's outer hull, is what I would do. Make a three-layered spacecraft, to keep optimum pressure controls, and let the outer "silver" hull slide in between the two, leaving only nice black finish. Too heavy, too complicated (though it would look cool in a James Bond-ish sort of way). Just use a shroud that separates at around the same time as the second stage. This would occur beyond camera range, and the shroud-halves would be interpreted as pieces of the jettisoned stage falling into the ocean. Heat is a real problem. You've got to get rid of the heat from the electronics somehow. Also, a black spacecraft may be optically invisible, but after a few minutes in the sun it will be quite prominent in infra-red.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 25, 2005 10:34:39 GMT -4
Maintaining thermal control on a black spacecraft may be tricky.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 23, 2005 19:03:47 GMT -4
They're around, if you look for them. In just a couple of minutes I found this one.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 10, 2006 2:12:54 GMT -4
Right. Nit-picking aside, the point still stands: We had effective ICBMs before the Moon Race began. The lunar program had no relevance to offensive missile development.
Politically, the Apollo program had the opposite purpose from what ivan proposed: It moved the space race away from military objectives and focused it on achievments in exploration. In the US, both of the Air Force's key manned space projects - The X-20 Dynasoar and the Manned Orbiting Lab (MOL) - were cancelled, while Apollo received the funding it needed to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 9, 2006 23:21:58 GMT -4
never implied nasa as being evil with the way they ran the show,they were just simply trying to scare the Russians with USA's longer range missle tech over theirs,by this hoax they were trying to deter the russions form attacking during the cold war era... For starters, that assumes the Soviets would be fooled by a hoax, which considering the openness of the project, the known engineering challenges and the ability for them to track the missions, would have been flat-out impossible. Secondly, the technology for Apollo/Saturn moon-rockets was largely irrelevant to the arms race. Having the ability to launch satellites into Earth orbit meant that a nuclear-armed nation could drop a bombs anywhere on the globe <45 minutes after launch. Both the US & USSR proved that they could do this in the late 1950s, before the Moon race began. From then on, ICBM efforts concentrated on accuracy and (even more importantly) reducing the time and complexity of launching missiles. The early ICBMs used cryogenic fuels that were difficult to store at the launch sites. The missiles had to be raised into position and fueled before launch, and this could take an hour or more. The next generation of missiles (Titan & R-16, to name two examples) used storable liquid propellants. These missiles could be launched directly from their silos after fueling. In the mid-1960s, we started deploying the solid-fuel Minuteman ICBMs. These did not require fueling, and could be launched on just a few minutes' notice from very simple silos. In contrast, the Saturn V moon-rocket was an enormous bird that carried millions of pounds of cryogenic propellant. After assembly and roll-out to its huge launch pad, it required weeks of checkout time to make sure everything was ready to go. This technology simply had no direct military value (this was why the Soviet military did not fully support their manned moon program; they had no use for such large, complex rockets). In fact, the technology flow was in the other direction: the inertial platforms and guidance computers for ballistic missiles were adapted for use in the Apollo spacecraft.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Dec 28, 2005 20:49:32 GMT -4
Ivan, before anyone spends time trying to discuss this, please answer the following:
Are you at all open-minded to the possibility that man has flown to the Moon?
Are you willing to listen to and consider evidence that we have flown to the Moon?
If one of your preconceived notions is called into question, are you willing to consider the possibility that you may be wrong?
If the answers to the above are "no", then we need not waste our time.
If the answers are "yes", then other than a new visit to the Moon, what evidence would you accept that we did, in fact, go?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 28, 2005 0:24:46 GMT -4
I never said they had the exact same places, and the rock moves in the shots so they are not taken from the same position. I don't believe they're stars or planets, or radiation. Right, so your first question still remains, and it's a good one: What are those white dots? By comparing different scans we can rule-out possibilities. If they are on some low-res scans, but not on the higher ones (which, btw, were taken from the originals), we can safely say that these are artifacts in reproduction. Look at the high-res versions of the same images (linked in DataCable's post). The artifacts show up much more clearly, and you can trace them intermittantly all the way across both images. Here is the roll from Apollo 16 that I was talking about (Magazine E/116, high-res version here). The dark blobs look very similar, and are repeated from frame to frame. Forgive the knee-jerk reaction some of the more enthusiastic members, here. At the mention of the word "anomally" some peoples' heads explode. This is a Pavlovian response to the repeated misuse of this word by Hoax Believers. It wears on us, after a while. The white dots and dark blobs are anomalous. They are unexpected features, but not without plausible explanations. It's not a matter of gullibility. Actually, it's quite common for universities to serve as archives/repositories of data. It sure beats having the stuff sitting in a government warehouse somewhere next to the lost Ark of the Covenant and a sled named "Rosebud". It keeps the stuff where researchers can get at it easily. When I was at the University of Arizona in the early '80s, I spent a lot of time at the Planetary Imagery Center, looking through file cabinet after file cabinet of unpublished photos. That I was doing this when I should have been studying explains a lot about why I never graduated...
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 27, 2005 21:58:25 GMT -4
Thanks for that link, Data Cable. Someone did a nice cleanup job on those photos <snip> ...or the low res image was dirtied-down. Actually that dark crud running horizontally is visible (and nearly identical) in both pictures, and is also detectable in the low-res version. I think it's crud in the camera or film magazine. I remember a roll from Apollo 16 at North Ray Crater that had shot after shot of similar blotches on what otherwise would have been great pix. The two images that you referenced that show the white spots do not show them in the same place in the sky. Note the position relative to the dark rock in the foreground.
|
|