|
Post by trebor on Oct 2, 2010 20:41:43 GMT -4
Tee hee, the newest: the "sky" in the Apollo pictures shouldn't be black. (from here) Would it be too much to hope that was a troll? Is it even possible to fake that much stupid?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Sept 28, 2010 18:58:12 GMT -4
Longer exposure time would cause the glare to obscure the sun spokes. Note that in the earth picture the earth is quite dark and looks like a very short exposure time was used.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Sept 20, 2010 9:21:06 GMT -4
Apollo 2 video showing the inside of the liquid hydrogen tank during launch. www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWjJWg0T-tQIt is rather startling the amazing amount of detail there was to every stage of the missions.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Sept 14, 2010 9:29:02 GMT -4
What point are you trying to make and the VARB? That the field may attenuate/divert incoming gamma rays. May I point out that the Van Allen belt's consist of charged particles trapped within the earths magnetic field. Gamma rays are not charged particles and are not effected by either the VAB's nor magnetic fields.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Sept 10, 2010 2:22:53 GMT -4
When was the last time you saw that film? I suggest you take another look and watch out for those not-so-subtle errors. It is quite interesting that there was absolutely no attempt to emulate lunar gravity in the film at all, nor the vacuum.That is quite a good point. But then, if they did it might have made Apollo more obvious. If they had tried it would have made it obvious how hard it is to do reduced gravity convincingly in films. There is a reason why artificial gravity is so universal in sci-fi films and tv.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Aug 29, 2010 22:14:54 GMT -4
Like a good film director can't fix that? 2001 was magical.... When was the last time you saw that film? I suggest you take another look and watch out for those not-so-subtle errors. It is quite interesting that there was absolutely no attempt to emulate lunar gravity in the film at all, nor the vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Aug 29, 2010 22:02:57 GMT -4
Here's my CT explanation for the LRRRRRRRR (or however many Rs it has). The Moon reflects laser signal anyway. LASER reflection intensity would be a criterion for landing site selection I take it that your comprehensive research did not include learning what a retro-reflector is and how it differs from an ordinary reflective surface?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Aug 23, 2010 1:44:15 GMT -4
I was speaking to a hoax believer some time ago who also insisted the ISS was fake, when pointed out that it was perfectly possible to see it with your own eyes ans much detail on it through a telescope he suggested it might be a hologram. There is no possible evidence (even seeing it with their own eyes) which could convince many.
And they will continue to make reasonable sounding arguments which people will accept without any attempt at research or critical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Aug 10, 2010 6:08:15 GMT -4
Depending on exactly how your player still-frames video (ie., whether it repeats a single field or an entire frame), the components of that still frame come from either three or four distinct moments in time depending on the color. Those moments are separated by 1/60 of a second, so the span of time covered by the still frame is either 1/30 or 1/20 of a second. I see. That is clearer. It also explains the coloured fringes which show frequently. Any frame rate changes made by youtube or the source of the video could also confuse the issue.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Aug 10, 2010 3:16:40 GMT -4
BTW what is a "time click"? I ask because the RCA TV camera was a field-sequential camera operating at 30fps (or 60 fields), Due to the nature of sequential color matrixing one sequential color field was always delayed so as to make it compliant with the other two color fields... 30fps? I was under the impression that the effective frame rate of the camera was 20.. Or was 30 the rate at which it transmitted at?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jul 23, 2010 16:17:52 GMT -4
So far, I've been able to counter all of his arguments (not that he acknowledges that, of course) but he keeps returning to the subject of the astronauts Hasselblad cameras, claiming that no modifications were made to protect them from the effects of radiation, therefore the Moon landings never happened. Maddeningly, I've not been able to come up with a definite refutation of this claim. There was a satellite which in 1967 tested 17 different film types in orbit, both without and with shielding (1cm polycarbonate) over 10 days. See : 'SENSITIVITY OF PHOTOGRAPHIC FILM TO NUCLEAR RADIATION IN NEAR-EARTH MISSIONS' Edward Noon, Richard Brown. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, VOL. NS-14, NO.6 , DECEMBER 1967 That was testing the sensitivity to the electrons and protons along with any secondary radiation. Makes interesting reading. Especially considering all the shielding used was 1 cm of plastic. That and there were many lunar probes which used film. (Both Russian and NASA) Entirely unmodified film cameras were also used in space prior to Apollo as well.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jul 22, 2010 5:51:18 GMT -4
Why couldn't the waste heat from the LM electronics have been dumped into the cabin to keep the astronauts warm instead of being dumped overboard by the sublimator, consuming precious water while the astronauts froze? I'm sure if you were designing the system you could build it in a way where this would be possible.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jul 19, 2010 11:43:47 GMT -4
I heard once that the petrified wood from the Dutch museum was given too early (October 9th 1969) to be a lunar sample. So when did USA start the distribution? Thanks. According to this link, it was as a result of a presidential request in November 1969. Interesting link.... I wonder when the first actual 'rocks' were given?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jul 16, 2010 14:13:00 GMT -4
I think the Mythbusters should revisit the Apollo "hoax". Their wonderful episode should have laid it to rest, but some people just won't give up. At the recent Amazing Meeting, Australian hoax advocate Jarrah White ambushed Adam Savage with a camera to ask if he knew that two separate experiments had managed to get laser returns directly off the lunar surface before the Apollo program. Adam said he hadn't. It's all here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxzQXxo6JlMWhite is actually correct but irrelevant. And he knows it. Unable to address the real issue, he attacks a straw man. The issue is whether Apache Point, not some other laser, can receive a return from the moon without a lunar reflector. The answer to that question is 'no', just as demonstrated in the show when they shot both the Apollo 15 site and the lunar highlands. Apache Point is specifically designed to work with a reflector. Its laser pulses are far shorter and much less energetic than those in the 1962 MIT "Project LunaSee" experiment: 90 picoseconds at 115 millijoules/pulse vs half millisecond pulses carrying a whopping 50 joules each. The Apache Point laser develops an impressive-sounding peak power of 1.3 gigawatts, but only briefly; in 90 picoseconds light travels only 27 millimeters! Apache Point generates 20 pulses per second for an average power of only 0.115 * 20 = 2.3 watts. And it's average power (total energy or photon count, actually), not peak power, that determines detectability. Why such short pulses? Because MIT's goal in 1962 was just to bounce their laser off the moon to show it can be done. Apache Point regularly measures the earth-moon distance to millimeter accuracy to test a variety of scientific theories. This brings up more proof that Apache Point detected a reflector at the Apollo 15 site. The beam is kilometers wide when it reaches the moon's irregular surface, but the growing peak on the computer screen showed a very short return roughly a nanosecond wide. There must be a physically small and highly reflective object in that beam. Jarrah White has been informed of all these facts but ignores them as counter to his preferred view of the world. He produces hundreds of Youtube videos arguing that Apollo was a massive hoax. In doing so, he implicitly and falsely labels as liars many honest, hard working and accomplished engineers and scientists, such as the staff of the Apache Point Observatory. Jarrah White calls himself the "grandson of the Apollo conspiracy theory". Now he's taken on the Mythbusters. I'd love to see you accept the challenge and give him more than he bargained for. Phil Webb did a couple of excellent videos about lunar laser ranging which cover these points in great detail. Well worth a look I think....
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jul 16, 2010 13:58:13 GMT -4
There may be no legal expectation of privacy in a public place, such as the hotel meeting room, under Nevada law. It is not clear to me he broke a Nevada law when making the recording. It is more likely he did when publishing the recording. The statues and trial law on this kind of action are unsettled and two party consent for public places is hard to justify. Is a privately owned Hotel a public or private space according to the law?
|
|