|
Post by trebor on Dec 24, 2009 14:00:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 24, 2009 13:41:37 GMT -4
Yes, I picked-up pretty bad radiation burns the first two times I went to Hawaii. Hmm, this means Hawaii must be a hoax. People would be fried instantly in the harsh radiation. Obviously only the UK with its 100% cloud cover can be real!
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 24, 2009 7:12:18 GMT -4
Remember, its the Belts, Outer Space and the Moon that I wanted to get addressed regarding space being or not being "awash" with radiation. "awash" is a meaningless term. Please be more specific. As for the Moon, the Russian lander Luna 9 measured a radiation dose on the surface of 30 millirads per day. 5 months worth of exposure to that level of radiation 'may' give you an increased chance of developing cancer.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 15, 2009 14:58:52 GMT -4
There are NO reliable vertical indicators in any of the images or video. Hence the point of the Gnomon carried on many missions.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Oct 15, 2009 15:56:24 GMT -4
It was shut off manually once the contact sensors tripped. But how promptly they did this varied between the missions. Apollo 15 for example had its engine shut off promptly and it fell quite a way, where as Apollo 11 may have had the contact light on for a while before it was noticed and the engine shut down.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Sept 28, 2009 15:30:52 GMT -4
It is interesting that the presence of water on the surface of lunar samples and in lunar soil was dismissed as "contamination" without further investigation. Another reminder that scientists can be just as dogmatic about what they know is true as anyone else. Dogmatic? Cautious would be a better word for it. Contamination could not be ruled out. And the lack of hydrous minerals in the rocks would indicate that as well. Declaring dramatic results based on shaky evidence would be stupid.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Sept 27, 2009 15:20:44 GMT -4
Edit: The same stains are visible on roll 114, starting with frame 18444. Note that frames 18442-3 are both completely sunstruck (as is 18444, slightly), which suggests the magazine was removed. Apparently this is when the contamination occurred. That is interesting. I see that the film roll 115 does not have the stains. So the chronology goes from 114 to 116? It would be good to know why the camera was opened in the LM at that point. Edit: Thanks for the help Mr Cable, It was very handy
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Sept 27, 2009 13:38:54 GMT -4
Hey people, On the images in the Apollo 16 film roll 116 they all have a brown stain which is the same in each image on the roll. Does anyone know what it is and where it came from?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Sept 12, 2009 5:17:07 GMT -4
Wow, I broke copyright law and I was caught red handed. What do you mean I used it without "Prior Permission" and got landed with a writ. How dumb is that. What did he get caught nicking? I tend to avoid his channel as I value my sanity.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Sept 10, 2009 10:49:10 GMT -4
The motion of the dust he kicks up is the oddest bit in that one, it seems incredibly fast. Like the motion of the arms in this one. The trouble with the all the sped up clips is that any motion which is not entirely dependant upon gravity suddenly becomes too fast.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Sept 9, 2009 14:49:38 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Aug 30, 2009 15:45:03 GMT -4
That is quite a freaky picture, shows just how hard it is to judge distances in the Apollo images.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Aug 28, 2009 8:15:20 GMT -4
I'm being questioned as to why the LRO has not yet photographed the Apollo 12 landing site. I'm sure there's a technical reason for this but can anyone help me realise why? The LRO photographs a continuous strip as it orbits, while it will eventually photograph the entire surface many times it can only capture what it happens to pass overhead off.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Aug 27, 2009 6:20:28 GMT -4
according to jarrah the only conclusive proof that the landings were real would be if an indepentant party photographed pictures of the landing sites from earth by telescope. when i build a telescope the size of a football field i'll get right on that He would just claim that you were not 'independent' and accuse you of lying. Also it is interesting he would not accept pictures taken by 'independent' parties taken in lunar orbit. Nice shifting standards of proof there.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Aug 13, 2009 18:57:58 GMT -4
Speaking of stars in the image AS11-40-5869 of Buzz coming down the ladder there are several 'stars' in the sky, these seem to be in several other shots in the sequence but in different locations. What is the cause of these?
|
|