|
Post by trebor on Mar 5, 2010 8:36:14 GMT -4
I watched a lovely film of a witness study done by a professor in the UK ( which has been replicated in loads of countries). Do you remember the name of that experiment?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Mar 4, 2010 19:39:31 GMT -4
To go back to the topic of funny YouTube comments, here is one from a HB....
He then went on to claim that mass and weight are exactly the same thing, and that you lose mass when in a different gravitational field.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Mar 1, 2010 7:36:02 GMT -4
While it's never possible to rule out a sufficiently elaborate hoax, so far I haven't found anything that says it was impossible for Baysinger to do what he did. Was Kentucky in line of sight of the Apollo 11 landing site during the EVA?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 19, 2010 12:08:25 GMT -4
Cosmic Rays are the same partical radiation that we can produce on Earth, they just originate 'in space'. They dson't have any mystery poweres. Even the LHC can't produce particles with the energy many cosmic rays have. Although as noted cosmic rays at those kinds of energies are rare. And as you say they are just protons and other charged particles.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 19, 2010 3:10:02 GMT -4
I'm thinking specifically about the cosmic rays. Wikipedia says: You don't need to go into deep space to test exposure to those. Cosmic rays are at such high energies that they pass right through the earth's magnetic field and into the atmosphere. As such the effects of them can be examined in low earth orbit easily enough. isn't it also true that the vast majority of cosmic rays are blocked by the Van Allen belts? Not really. The higher energy cosmic rays pass right through the Earth's magnetic field, the lower energy particles get trapped and become the VABs.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 15, 2010 20:34:54 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 11, 2010 19:14:11 GMT -4
If you can block all light sources from your eyes, including secondary light sources, you probably could see stars. The main snag here is that one of those light sources is the sky.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 7, 2010 4:34:18 GMT -4
11866 is from EVA 3 and 12447 is from EVA 2. It certainly looks to me as though the astronauts have covered most of the rover tracks by moving about. Several are still visible behind the astronaut in 11866 however.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 7, 2010 3:03:13 GMT -4
About the "mirror like rocks" what I mean is any formation that could be reflective enough to trigger the detectors. Unfortunately 'mirror like' is not good enough. The retro-reflectors installed used small mirrors at exact angles to each other so that light is reflected back 'exactly' in the same direction it came from. A simple mirror would reflect light 'away' from the source. The 'mirror like rock' idea is just not realistic.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 6, 2010 10:52:28 GMT -4
Spot the difference 2. From the link on page 1. Methinks a mistook is in the offing. I am seeing a lot of disturbance in the one labeled AS15-11866, from the astronauts kicking it up I would assume. AS15-12447 has what appears to be a more pristine surface. 12447 appears to show the two as a handy comparison. Disturbed and non disturbed. 1244711866Standing by for the shoot down in flames. I am not sure what the issue is here... But 12447 is certainly not more 'prestine'. The foreground is covered in rover tracks and the regolith kicked everywhere by the rover. Could you be more specific?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 31, 2010 9:23:38 GMT -4
He believes it is a 'nail' and would 'puncture' the astronauts suits. Yes this is the level he is at. Anyway, cheers for the pics
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 30, 2010 20:08:08 GMT -4
I have a query about a claim made by someone else about AS16-107-17442 In it he claimed that there was a "nail" sticking out of what seems to me to be the probe attached to the bottom of the landing pad. See this : www.myimgs.net/images/mynf.jpgAbout a third of the way down. What appears to be a handle on the end of it seems to blow that one away, but I am still curious as to what that is.. Are there any other images showing this? Anyone know?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 29, 2010 16:24:40 GMT -4
The hoaxer response would simply be to say "it was all faked anyways, the packs didn't really have that much mass in them because they were fake props" Except of course the mass was evident in the way the astronauts moved about. All that mass would take a good deal of force to start and stop.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 26, 2010 14:34:15 GMT -4
Following the Apollo era NASA dedicated its maned space activity to the Space Shuttle. In order to be successful, it needed the cooperation of the industrial contractors that were required to build, operate and maintain the new vehicle. These companies were reluctant to to make the huge upfront investment in this system if they thought NASA might back out and return to the use of the proven and reliable Apollo launch system. One of the ways NASA proved their commitment to the Shuttle was the destruction of the tools needed to build Apollo. This does not mean hand tools and such but expensive specially made industrial tools and machines that are required to manufacture the Apollo components. Following that event, the US was left without the ability to build rockets that could go to the moon, a mission which the Shuttle cannot fulfill. That is interesting, it certainly seems very short sighted looking back now. Was this the stated reason at the time?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 15, 2010 3:13:58 GMT -4
Gary, Paragraphs go a long way towards making a post legible.
|
|