|
Post by trebor on Jan 13, 2012 8:57:43 GMT -4
Looks like different sources say different things, with other possibilities for their origin being cosmic rays, or solar ejections. Seems even the NASA sources have to admit that no one is entirely sure as to where the particles come from. Likely to be some from all of the above surely?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 8, 2012 16:59:42 GMT -4
To be honest, I have always found my debating the opposite side extremely educating. Because of my interest in Apollo I have learned so much about Apollo. Had I never gotten into the hoax debate, I would only know that Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon. So it isn't a complete waste, and I do other things in my life than just Apollo, but whenever I'm on the computer, that's mostly what I do. Got to agree. I have learned a huge amount about the Apollo (and earlier US and Soviet) space missions from being here. And it has given me a lot of extra respect for the scale of the achievement.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 7, 2012 19:00:23 GMT -4
Blocked in my area
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 7, 2012 8:29:25 GMT -4
This was EXCELLENT WORK Count Zero. In fact, during my conversation with Bart Sibrel, I brought up weather patterns. He was quick to assert that that is all easily faked. I don't suppose he stated how exactly?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 1, 2012 22:14:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 16, 2011 19:43:08 GMT -4
Too bad they can't force you to be polite and answer questions. LOL...
What Question Would You Like Answered... These will do for a start,, Spend less time formatting, more time thinking. What was timed in hundredths of a second? The interval between the closing consonant of one speaker and the first consonant of another? From what part were these timed? What was the method used to determine these edges, and can you quantify the error in that method? How did you achieve 1/100 a second timing on a YouTube video? What steps other than watching the video as presented on the site did you employ? Your entire methodology is unclear. You have given insufficient information for anyone to understand your process or to replicate it. (As I said on another board: I am in no way approving of the method inferred or implying that it, or any caveat I apply to it, makes it in any way useable.) Are you going to answer these questions, Damnsod, or would you prefer to just keep hurling insults at members of this forum?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 16, 2011 18:42:15 GMT -4
Is This Forum Actually Peer Reviewed By Nasa Scientists Then... No. Can You Point Me In The Direction Of The Peer Review Please...!!! It's that way --->
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 16, 2011 16:26:12 GMT -4
Temperatures in the corona can reach 2 million degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 million degrees Celsius), Do you know the difference between heat and temperature? As for comets, they do indeed sublimate and give off gasses which can be observed from earth. And using spectroscopy astronomers can work out what they contain; and they contain lots of H20. Your post is both irrelevant to the topic and ignorant. Go learn something.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 14, 2011 12:01:18 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 10, 2011 13:22:46 GMT -4
trebor Have i ever argued that Armstrong referenced seeing stars thru optics? No, you seem to ignore that detail. My claim is Armstrong 1970 interview is saying that the experience of viewing space from the moon or cislunar space has equal content, and this content excludes stars. It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that they did see stars in cis-lunar space. This is even mentioned in the mission transcript. Just the deep blackness of space, Armstrong also included that he had not seen any planets. And of course it is. According to Armstrong other Apollo astronauts reported seeing planets, did they attempt to take any pictures of them or were any images captured on film by accident? Yes, Venus is captured in a number of images. As are the stars. Incidentally, when are you going to try and make an actual point here? You keep bringing this issue up but never actually get anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 10, 2011 12:24:22 GMT -4
Are you really comparing orbital mechanics to football?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 10, 2011 11:08:19 GMT -4
... Armstrong does not include stars in this list of the only objects visible. Actually he does. Because of course the optical telescope would nicely block all incident light. This has been pointed out to you a few times, why do you keep ignoring it?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 9, 2011 8:14:49 GMT -4
You seem to be having trouble reading again. Yes it is a series of images of solar features you could never see by eye. Atmosphere or not. And hypothetically it would, if you had a camera with a vastly greater dynamic range than any which exists. Pity you seem to be unable to think as well as unable to read. Try reading this this link : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_%28eye%29Here is a hot tip for you: the sun is very bright. If you don't believe me find a sunny day and go stare at it for a few seconds. Are you sure you read this? whats interesting here is the stars were so bright that he could see his instruments without internal lights. Isn't it also interesting that he needed to switch the internal lights off in order to do so? Also: So what? Do you have an actual point to make here?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 8, 2011 17:06:39 GMT -4
A camera photographing the sun directly with a several second exposure will show nothing at all. Something PD seems not to realise. I didn't look at it close enough the first time. At a quick glance I thought it was an eclipsed Sun because of the corona being visible. So it is.... "the Sun itself is a composite of a picture taken through a solar filter and a series of images of the solar corona recorded during the solar eclipse of February 26"
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 8, 2011 16:53:37 GMT -4
If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... To a camera set to a several-second exposure, perhaps. Not to the eye, however. A camera photographing the sun directly with a several second exposure will show nothing at all. Something PD seems not to realise.
|
|