|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2008 7:22:23 GMT -4
Ok, Turbonium, explain to us what you think happened? Why would the fake Earth have moved? Was it an accident? If so, why didn't they do a second take? Was it on purpose? If so, why? I want answers to this. I'm getting really tired of you dodging or ignoring any questions we ask of you. You are getting dangerously close to being banned for trolling. Try answering to an entire forum by yourself within a few minutes, and you'll quickly realize it has nothing to do with trolling. Imo, the fake Earth is a projection being moved around outside the capsule. That's why we see it 'appear' in another window soon after it 'disappears' from the first window. This is where I disagree with Sibrel. He believes they are in LEO at the time. I think the fake Earth moving around, and the 'moving round light' previously discussed here, are both points of evidence that the capsule is right here on Earth, and not in LEO (or in space, period) The fake Earth and the round light can only be effects created from outside the capsule. (As a side note, I've always doubted that NASA would take such a risk - to wit, sending the Apollo 11 astronauts out into space/LEO. If there was a fatality, it would screw up the entire 'storybook ending' NASA had planned.)
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2008 6:58:57 GMT -4
I watched the video of the "Earth" being filmed through that window. It's simply amazing - the "Earth" somehow floats right out of view!.... I can't wait to read your 'explanations' for this one.... Perhaps it's explained by this amusing observation by a photographic and Apollo "expert": The cameraman is somehow able to keep filming a steady view of the Earth, while floating weightlessly, directly backwards in a pitch black capsule, packed with two other people, and various pieces of equipment everywhere. With absolutely no change to the Earth's image... Perhaps it's also explained by simply moving the camera to the right and at the same time rotating it (the front of the lens) to the left. Hell, I've done that hundreds of times. It has the effect of moving a background object out of frame to the right. Try it sometime -- you don't even need a camera. Any tube-like object or your hands cupped around your eyes will do the trick. Turbonuium, I am astonished that you should be so ignorant as to not understand how this could be done. Are you REALLY that ignorant, or are you just yanking chains for the fun of it and indulging in a bit of attention-seeking? And how about not swanning in so infrequently, not being a seagull, not changing the subject and, instead, actually getting around to answering our questions of around 18 months ago? Is that asking too much? First of all, I can only post when I have the time to, so get off that soapbox. Second, I went back to pick up where I left off. As you seem to think I skipped past your old posts, is it asking too much to repost your questions so I can properly deal with them? It's a lot easier than trying to sift through hundreds of posts and guess which ones you want me to answer... And if I'm really so "ignorant", then prove it. I asked someone else to duplicate the effect, and I have yet to see a reply. So why don't you enlighten me, and post a clip which recreates the same effect. It should be very easy for you to do, since you've done it hundreds of times" already...
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 6, 2008 2:51:49 GMT -4
You moved, obviously.
In your clip, we can see the window edge angle and background are both changing in perspective. Slow movement, making the streetlight (likewise) slowly 'disappear' from our view.
But that is not what happens with the "Earth" footage.
Watch a clear version of it. The "Earth" quickly starts to move out of view while the camera remains steady. Only after that, we can see a bit of 'shaky' camera movement occur.
The camera is not being moved around at high speed when the "Earth" is zipping out of view.
Try to get the same effect on video with your streetlight....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 6, 2008 2:23:34 GMT -4
PTC is done to prevent overheating of capsule controls, etc.
When? The times for PTC initiation and termination are recorded in the Mission Report, as I've already mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 6, 2008 1:54:50 GMT -4
Those aren't logical explanations. It's certainly not due to camera movement... There is no change in camera position which could have obscured the view of "Earth". The window edge gives us a frame of reference to verify the consistent camera angle. PTC maneuvers? That makes no sense. Isn't it 'logical' that they would have informed/discussed it with Houston at the time? But they don't mention it. The PTC maneuvers were also recorded in the Mission Report. But there is no record of PTC maneuvers going on at this time, either. Any other suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 5, 2008 22:57:39 GMT -4
Two questions for you. 1) Are you aware of the CSM's orientation during the Translunar Flight when not doing burns? 2) Are you aware of which window the filming was done through? Here's a clue for you on 2 I watched the video of the "Earth" being filmed through that window. It's simply amazing - the "Earth" somehow floats right out of view!.... I can't wait to read your 'explanations' for this one....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 22, 2008 1:09:04 GMT -4
Two questions for you. 1) Are you aware of the CSM's orientation during the Translunar Flight when not doing burns? 2) Are you aware of which window the filming was done through? Here's a clue for you on 2 The spacecraft would be aimed at an anticipated "meeting" point - a point in space just ahead of the Moon's orbital path (~ 60-80 miles). And I've already noted the window they used for filming - the 9" diameter hatch window. It can be seen in the still frame below, just after the interior cabin lights are turned on again.... What is the source for your window? It isn't the one they used for the filming.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 21, 2008 23:05:51 GMT -4
As I said, the oldest posts will be addressed first.... I cannot see how someone could have then moved the camera several feet back from the window in this situation. The cameraman is somehow able to keep filming a steady view of the Earth, while floating weightlessly, directly backwards in a pitch black capsule, packed with two other people, and various pieces of equipment everywhere. With absolutely no change to the Earth's image... What evidence do you have that some one moved the camera back from the window? Is it not possible that one, two or even all three of the astronauts may have had a hand in moving it, perhaps from one to another? It is obvious to me that the moving is done quite quickly between 53:02 and 53:10 because the earth disappears and reappears a few times and is mostly off-screen for that time, which shows that the camera was not trained on earth all the time and may have indeed been turned away from it while being moved to the far seat. Yet you claim the cameraman maintained a steady view of the earth with absolutely no change, when he certainly did not and we can all see this with our own eyes. What are you talking about? Are we viewing the same piece of film, on the Spacecraft Films Apollo 11 DVD No. 1? After the camera is moved we then see a fairly smooth zooming-out from the earth and the CM's interior coming into view. Remember that the camera is not being moved back at this time with the zoom untouched because if it was, the earth wouldn't change size at all. And WHY would this even be done? It makes no sense to take such a risk - blindly float backwards, completely across the inside of a pitch black CM, while still aiming the camera at the window. Who says anyone was taking a risk? Who says that anyone floated blindly backwards? Who says the CM interior was pitch black? Just because it looks black on film to you doesn't mean it was, as already pointed out to you by someone who works with TV cameras. Just because you might be ignorant of exposure it doesn't mean that we all are. The Earth image will only be worse in quality filming it through a window some 8 or 10 feet away! But they weren't moving it back to film the earth, they were moving it back to film the interior of the CM! Surely, you know that, don't you? It's perfectly clear. IMO Buzz or whoever held the camera after it was moved back then found that he could still film the earth from that position and merely did so before filming the interior. Remember, the earth disappeared from view while the camera was moved back between 53:02 and 53:10. I'd like to start with this comment from Kiwi's post... "IMO Buzz or whoever held the camera after it was moved back then found that he could still film the earth from that position and merely did so before filming the interior." This is nonsense. They're (supposedly) ~130,000 miles from Earth, and can see (and film) the entire Earth, through the 9" diameter hatch window, from a position several feet away? The Apollo 11 timeline states... 12:17 p.m.- Midcourse correction is made with a three-second burn, sharpening the course of the spacecraft and testing the engine that must get them in and out of lunar orbit.
7:31 p.m.- Astronauts begin first scheduled color telecast from spacecraft, showing view of the Earth from a distance of about 128,000 nautical miles.At this time, the astronauts would not have had a view of the Earth through the hatch window, which was in the CSM's nose cone!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 19, 2008 1:34:52 GMT -4
Apollo 8's illusion picked up from where Apollo 7's reality left off. What about Apollo 9? Does the fact it never left LEO mean you are prepared to accept that one was real too? Imo, the only aspect of Apollo 9 that most likely needed to be faked was the photo/video footage of LM activity in LEO (undocking, test flights, docking, etc.). I see no reason they would need to fake an LEO mission (in whole or in part) otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 19, 2008 0:56:19 GMT -4
But why couldn't Apollo 8 leave low Earth orbit? I'm not totally ruling out the possibility (that it was technically feasable for Apollo 8 to leave LEO). However, when compared to Ares V, and all of its ongoing problems, it's starting to look all the more that it was not possible. But the problems I find with Apollo 8 go well beyond this issue.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 18, 2008 3:42:33 GMT -4
"[W]eren't capable of" meaning simply "it hadn't been done it before," or do you actually have evidence of the technical inability to send men to lunar orbit? I think the best evidence is only now starting to filter out. As a by-product of our efforts to "return" men to the Moon in 2020. Current and planned projects and studies leading up to 2020 are exposing numerous holes in the official Apollo account. Example 1... VA Radiation Belts - big bucks are being spent on new VA Belt studies to "make space exploration safer for humans and satellites."www.bu.edu/csp/RBSP-ECT/News/mediLexicon.pdf Satellites aren't used as vehicles for space exploration, first of all. They are used in various applications related to space (and its exploration), but they certainly don't "explore" space. That's also evident in the very term - "satellite" - describing an object in orbit. The primary reason they're spending $millions is to make it "safer" for humans. period. It's not to make it "safer" for both humans and satellites. It's more of a side benefit of the studies. Example 2... The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon: Final ReportReleased in 2007, this paper questions several of Apollo's key "findings" regarding the lunar environment... Based on returned Apollo 12 samples, which were collected on one of the rays of Copernicus crater, the crater formed about 800 Ma to 850 Ma ago. While radiometric ages of Apollo 12 samples suggest a narrowly constrained age of 800 Ma to 850 Ma for Copernicus, crater counts on the ejecta blanket of Copernicus indicate a significantly older age, of up to 1.5 Ga. This could mean that material from Copernicus was not collected or that the samples do not represent the surface material dated with crater counts. The timing of Tycho was inferred from a landslide on the slopes of the South Massif and the “Central Cluster” craters at the Apollo 17 landing site, interpreted as secondary craters from Tycho. Based on this interpretation, an age of ~100 Ma was proposed for Tycho. However, the geological evidence for the South Massif landslide and the Central Cluster craters being formed by distant ejecta from Tycho remains somewhat equivocal. The exact ages of Copernicus and Tycho are important because they provide important calibration points for the lunar chronology at young ages.books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309109191&page=24In bold above - the Apollo 12 samples are so much younger in age than the actual material from Copernicus, that they even doubt the samples were collected from that region! In another example, isotopic ages of Apollo samples that are understood to be the earliest crustal rocks show significant overlap in ages, inconsistent with a traditional lunar magma ocean view of a primary anorthositic crust later intruded by plutonic rocks. Furthermore, ages of some ferroan anorthosites postdate the age estimates for crystallization of the lunar magma ocean. However, because of the small size and low abundance of radiogenic elements in these rocks, it may be that researchers have not yet sampled a true piece of the pristine lunar crust. More magnesian anorthosite than exists in our sample collection is identified by remote sensing (e.g., in the rings of the Orientale basin) and may represent the primary lunar crust, more tightly bounding researchers’ calculations of the magma ocean process and lunar bulk composition.
Researchers base their understanding of the major lunar rock types on Apollo sample knowledge. However, all the Apollo and Luna sample-return sites were within or on the edge of the PKT, and there are no returned samples unequivocally originating from the SPA Basin or FHT (although the lack of KREEP-bearing material in many feldspathic lunar meteorites implies that they come from the Feldspathic Highlands Terrane). books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309109191&page=29Above, they note a few other problems with the Apollo samples - it's inconsistencies with current knowledge, etc. Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) surface station instruments revealed that the mass of the native lunar atmosphere is on the order of 100 tons (3 × 1030 atoms, equivalent to ~1011 cm3 of terrestrial air at sea level [i.e., a cube of terrestrial air roughly 50 × 50 × 50 cubic meters at standard temperature and pressure]). Yet ALSEP total lunar atmosphere mass measurements failed to identify a census of species that comes anywhere close to the total mass of the lunar atmosphere: in fact, over 90 percent of the molecules in the Moon’s atmosphere are currently compositionally unidentified.How damning is this for Apollo? They may as well have guessed what the total mass of the Moon's atmosphere is, right here on Earth! Looks to me like they did, actually. How else could we still not know over 90% of what makes up the lunar atmosphere? As a result of its low mass, the lunar atmosphere is incredibly fragile. A typical lunar surface access module (LSAM) landing will inject some 10 to 20 tons of non-native gas into the atmosphere, severely perturbing it locally for a time that might range from weeks to months. A human outpost might see sufficient traffic and outgassing from landings, lift-offs, and extravehicular activities (EVAs), for example, to completely transform the nature of this pristine environment. For this reason, the committee recommends a strong early emphasis on studies of the native lunar atmosphere. The key scientific questions to address are the following: What is the composition of the lunar atmosphere? How does it vary in time with impacts, diurnal cycles, solar activity, and so on? What are the relative sizes of the sources that create this atmosphere and the sinks (loss processes) that attack it?books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11954&page=43From above, in bold - a lunar landing will inject "some 10 to 20 tons of non-native gas into the atmosphere, severely perturbing it locally for a time that might range from weeks to months." That wouldn't be very nice, which is why they add.... Before extensive human and robotic activity alters the tenuous lunar environment, it is important to understand processes involved with the atmosphere (exosphere) of airless bodies in the inner solar system.[/b] books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309103290&page=16We supposedly landed on the Moon six times. So - didn't anybody seem to realize that we spewed up 10 to 20 tons of non-native gas into the lunar atmosphere every time we landed? Or that we severely perturbed the local atmosphere for weeks or months each time? I can't find any mention of these effects in the Apollo documents. Does anybody know if it was noted at the time, and if so, where to find it? It would seem to me that nothing was ever said about it at the time. The first detection of individual atmospheric species came from the ALSEP and the scientific instrument module (SIM) instruments in the orbiting Apollo service module bay. Among the species discovered by Apollo missions were 40Ar, Po, Pb, Ra, and Rn, all of which emanate from the lunar interior via outgassing. Through the time variability and spatial location of such species, the lunar atmosphere represents a window into the workings and evolution of the lunar interior, including perhaps fractionization and a molten core. After Apollo, ground-based observers detected the alkali tracer species Na and K whose density ratios were close to the lunar surface ratio, suggesting that part of the atmosphere originates from the vaporization of surface minerals by processes such as solar wind sputtering and micrometeorite impact. Na and K are also present in the SBE atmospheres of Mercury, Io, and other Galilean satellites, thereby strengthening the utility of lunar SBE studies for enhancing knowledge of similar atmospheres across the solar system.
Evidence for volatile species, including H2O, CO, CO2, and CH4, was found sporadically by Apollo sensors, but these detections remain unconfirmedbooks.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11954&page=45Apollo data that has yet to be corroborated, although that doesn't necessarily rule it out as invalid. _____________________________________________________ To summarize - The Apollo samples are an inadequate representation of the lunar terrain. The supposed Copernicus samples are worthless. The atmosphere measurements are worthless. A lunar landing and EVA activity will cause severe problems, so it needs to be studied beforehand. What excuse is there for the Apollo landings? There are other examples, and I know many more will be published in the coming years.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 18, 2008 0:03:07 GMT -4
OK, so if that's the case, what was all the work up to and including Apollo 7 in aid of? To progress - improve and expand our understanding of the space environment(s), further develop field-related technologies, etc. - as much as possible, towards the ultimate goal (of landing men on the Moon before 1970). Just as Gemini picked up from where Mercury left off, Apollo picked up from where Gemini left off. But it ended with Apollo 7 - that mission was the culmination of our progress in the field(s) of space exploration / manned spaceflight during this era. Apollo 8's illusion picked up from where Apollo 7's reality left off.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 17, 2008 4:08:02 GMT -4
turbonium, perhaps you could state your case on this thread, from beginning to end. If I may suggest though, for the first issue: At what mission did NASA start faking it? Mercury? Gemini? Apollo 1? Apollo 11? Were satellite missions faked?I've always wanted to know the answer to this question. I would appreciate if we can remain polite and respectful at all times, and not comment on things said in other threads or other forums if not pertinent to this thread. No name calling, please. And I ask that whenever possible, questions are answered or explored before moving on. Sometimes, I realize a stalemate will be reached, and some questions will remain unanswered. I'm starting this thread to start a dialogue, not a brawl. And I hope to learn some things myself. As I'm still reviewing past issues, I'd like to breifly respond to this. Imo, the hoax began with Apollo 8. The mission was changed from LEO to manned lunar orbit in just a few months. The change in plans was strongly opposed by NASA's head honcho. He gave in, but resigned from NASA soon after - and before the glory he would have basked in from the Apollo 11 mission. I'm convinced that it had to be faked from the Apollo 8 mission forward, because we weren't capable of manned flight beyond LEO, let alone send men all the way to the Moon and back. I'll get back to the old issues I've yet to address, asap....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 13, 2006 1:05:49 GMT -4
Dang! There goes my "Teletubbies" theory!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jan 21, 2006 4:03:38 GMT -4
My predictions..
1. The national debt will pop the $9 trillion mark.
2. In his State of the Union address, Pres. Bush will enthusiastically declare that "the US economy has never been healthier". This will serve to placate the insecurities and worries of at least 90 - 95% of the American public. They are even happier upon seeing that they didn't pre-empt a single minute of the latest episode of "Desperate Housewives"
3. The remaining 5 - 10% of the people are still leery and very skeptical from the many years of past government speciosity.. So after the Address, they watch the economic "experts" trotted out on CNN for their analyses.. After viewing for 20 minutes, in what seems to have been 5 hours, the unfortunate viewers will either have fallen asleep or turned into glassy-eyed zombies from the nonsensical meanderings that are the hallmark of "econo-speak". Snapping out of their daze at the next commercial break, they decide to take comfort in the knowledge that none of the "experts" seem to have mentioned the $9 trillion debt, or anything beyond a minor disapproval by a token Democrat..
So it must not be such a big deal, after all. They can still catch the last 40 minutes of "Desperate Housewives".
*click*
Oh..almost forgot...
4. Al-jazeera will release one or two "newly acquired" Bin Laden recordings. Within 5 minutes of hearing them for the first time, the CIA will declare they are the "100% genuine, authentic" voice of Bin Laden.
|
|