|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 4, 2009 1:54:40 GMT -4
That HB is a bit thick. Obviously he can't figure out that the moon rotates once a month as it travels around the Earth. Thus any point along the moon's lower latitudes are exposed to strong sunlight for 15 continuous days, especially when it approaches "high noon" at those lower latitudes. The Earth's dayside would get pretty darned hot if the Earth rotated only once a month rather than once a day. That is why the moon's surface reaches a maximum temperature of about the boiling point of water after being exposed to sunlight for days on end, rather than the fact that the sun's radiation intensity is merely 30% brighter outside our atmosphere.
Yep, the human eye is fairly immune to IR radiation, and there isn't much more IR radiation on the moon from the sun (only about 30% more). So IR isn't going to hurt an astronaut's eyes. UV though is a problem. UV is a good bit stronger beyond our atmosphere -- especially shorter wavelength UV. Short exposure to UV (lifting the visor for a short period) probably is no different than spending 10 minutes on a beach at noon without sunglasses. You quickly figure out that its a good idea to put on a set of shades.
Finally, keep in mind that when Apollo 11 landed on the moon the sun was at an altitude of only 10.5 degrees (same as about an hour after sunrise on the Earth at temperate latitudes). The sun was just under 15 degrees high when the Apollo 11 astronauts did their EVA. So, its not like the scenery was anywhere close to being brightly lit like noon at the beach. Not only that, the moon's surface is nowhere as bright in sunlight as white sand is at the beach near noon.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 4, 2009 1:34:52 GMT -4
Stuff which I recently added to my web page:
I added a Celestia screen capture showing exactly what Aldrin would have seen looking up through his visor when photo 5903 was taken. I also added a Celestia closeup view of the Earth as seen when photo 5924 was taken which has the Earth in it above the LM. Celestia is a dead on match. I haven't gotten around to posting photos AS16-117-18815 through 18817 which show Venus just above the horizon, but I have confirmed in Celestia and TheSky software that it is indeed Venus. Those photos are badly overexposed.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 4, 2009 1:26:35 GMT -4
I find it amazingly ironic that at the exact moment when Apollo 11 landed on the moon that, from the landing site's vantage point, Washington DC was just about to set (rotate out of view due to the Earth's rotation). In other words, from Washington DC, the moon was just about to dip below the western horizon. It is simply amazing that US astronauts have not been back to the moon since the premature end of the Apollo missions.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 4, 2009 1:21:48 GMT -4
Oh yeah, the Tu-22M Backfire is a cool looking machine. Another one of my favorites is the Tu-95 Bear. I love those massive counter-rotating turboprops. I read somewhere that the ends of the blades at cruising speed actually rotate at supersonic speeds. Regardless, its one helluva clean looking machine for a turboprop.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 3, 2009 1:31:37 GMT -4
My favorite aircraft of all time is the B-17G Flying Fortress. One of these days I will get around to attending an airshow and getting a ride in one.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 3, 2009 1:26:41 GMT -4
I joined this forum a few days ago after seeing some of the ludicrous claims which have been made on those hoax and conspiracy web sites. The photo that got me started was 5903 from Apollo 11. Hoax believers claimed that Aldrin was lit by a second light source, and they made claims about what what they thought they see reflected in Aldrin's visor. Anyway, it seems that most of these conspiracy fanatics are intelligently insane. Did I coin a new phrase to describe a mental condition?
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 2, 2009 18:53:19 GMT -4
I processed and uploaded photo 5910 to my web page. This photo is also interesting in that there are two strong blue colored cosmic ray strikes visible in shadow areas towards the bottom right of the photo. I assume that the bright swath in the photo was caused by the LM's descent engine.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 2, 2009 15:22:12 GMT -4
Very nice stuff indeed. What kind of "processing" are you planning to do, though? Is it just going to be color enhancing photographs, or things like panoramas as well? I will eventually work on creating panoramas and photo montages as well. In any event, I will document all of the photo processing steps which I use so that others can produce similar results.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 2, 2009 14:36:01 GMT -4
I don't get it. Sure sparks from the switches could have spurred the fire, assuming that flammable gasses were already created by burning wiring. But it seems to me that the fire already had to be burning in the first place -- regardless of any switches which were thrown which might have further enhanced the fire.
The only thing which I have been able to figure out so far is that the Rene character was quite a quack and that Jarrah follows in his footsteps. Most of Jarrah's "observations" and "conclusions" border on asinine if not completely outlandish. I forget who said "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." These conspiracy nuts make sure that they see what they want to see. Once they "see" what they want to see, they stop any further investigation in order to learn the real truth about what they "think" that they are "seeing". Its pretty easy to shoot them all down in flames, yet they won't listen to reason or factual and scientifically based counterpoints to their "observations" and "conclusions".
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 2, 2009 14:00:02 GMT -4
Hi Kiwi,
I just finished uploading medium res versions of the photos and updating my web page. Click on the link next to each photo (rather than the photo itself) in order to view medium res versions of the photos. The medium res photos are set to 1024 pixel width.
:-)
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 2, 2009 12:55:40 GMT -4
Hi Kiwi,
I will add some medium resolution photo links to my web page since you are on dial-up. Funny that you mention Venus showing up in some of the Apollo images. I found the photos in question, AS16-117-18815 through 18817. I plan to process them and verify that it is indeed Venus just above the horizon. Can somebody same me some time and tell me the date and time these three photos were taken? Time accurate to within 6 hours is more than sufficient since the moon takes a month to make a full rotation.
For Apollo 11, Venus was high up above the sun at an altitude of roughly 57 degrees above the horizon. So I don't think that there are any AP11 photos which will have Venus in them. Mercury was really close to the sun, and Saturn was nearly directly overhead. Jupiter was below the horizon. There are a few stars which I might find in some of the AP11 photos if I do some serious looking. Here is my list of really bright stars to look for:
Sirius Canopus Achernar Fomalhaut Deneb (unlikely though since now I think that it would be too dim)
But siriusly, there are four star candidates which could be present in the AP11 photos. I gotta start looking at the B&W images even though at present the color photos have captivated my attention.
I should be able to clean up fogged photos pretty good, using a technique I developed for removing haze from aerial photos taken by some of my auction company clients. My technique should work even better on B&W photos since I don't have to deal with color shifts due to the haze as I would with color photos. You got mission and roll numbers for the fogged photos?
Anyway, the majority of the cosmic ray strikes I have seen in the dark sky above the lunar surface have a distinctly bluish color. I guess that kind of makes sense since films of the era exhibit far less reciprocity failure in blue compared to red. Needless to say, reciprocity failure normally applies to longer exposure times and very low light levels. Yet I suspect that a similar principle applies to these old films with regards to cosmic ray strikes. I need to start looking in the deep LM shadows for cosmic ray strikes to confirm them and their general strike size and color.
I finally looked at the photo 5910 you provided. I gotta download the high-res scan of that one and process it since I "think" I see some evidence of the LM's engine blast path. Last night I also looked at the LRO image of the Apollo 11 landing site. You can see the boulder field to the right of the descent stage which Armstrong had to manually navigate over. Too bad he didn't decide to try for landing right next to that big crater on the right edge of the boulder field. That would have been some nice scenery for for first moon landing.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 1, 2009 19:02:53 GMT -4
I was just thinking about some of the contradictions that exist in the usual hoax arguments. I thought perhaps we could compile a list of these contradictions. The purpose of this thread is not to debunk the arguments, but only to point out the contradictions between mutually exclusive arguments. I’ll start off with the following: ------------------------------ Argument #1 – The hoax was perpetrated to fool the Soviets about the USA’s technological capabilities. Argument #2 – The USA paid off the Soviets so they wouldn’t expose the hoax. Contradiction – If the Soviets knew about the hoax and accepted a payoff, then clearly they weren’t being fooled. The motive for perpetrating the hoax in the first place therefore doesn’t exist. ------------------------------ Argument #1 – Insufficient computing power existed in the 1960s to land on the moon. Vertical takeoff and landing under rocket power is inherently unstable. Argument #2 – The LRRRs were placed on the moon using robotic landers. The lunar rock and soil samples were collected using unmanned robotic spacecraft. Contradiction – The ability to land a spacecraft on the moon was beyond 1960s technology, yet NASA used that same insufficient technology to land on the Moon. The contradiction is obvious. ------------------------------ Argument #1 – Objects in space cannot be cooled by the vacuum of space. Argument #2 – The moon’s temperature varies from +250 degrees F in the sun to -250 degrees F in the shade. Contradiction – The moon is an object in space. If objects in space cannot be cooled by space, then how can a +250 sunlit surface cool to -250 when it moves into shade? ------------------------------ That’s enough for now. Do you have any to add? Neat post since you bring up so many of the hoax arguments. "Argument #1 – The hoax was perpetrated to fool the Soviets about the USA’s technological capabilities." -- Ya gotta give plausibility to this argument if you exclude all other arguments. "Argument #2 – The USA paid off the Soviets so they wouldn’t expose the hoax." -- Are ya kidding? You could have never bought off the Soviets in this regard. "Contradiction – If the Soviets knew about the hoax and accepted a payoff, then clearly they weren’t being fooled. The motive for perpetrating the hoax in the first place therefore doesn’t exist." -- Yep, an inarguable contradiction. "Argument #1 – Objects in space cannot be cooled by the vacuum of space." -- Any object in space exposed to shadow (no sunlight) will rapidly cool towards absolute zero, the cooling limited by any part of the object exposed to sunlight and the object's ability to conduct heat from its illuminated side to its shadowed side. "Argument #2 – The moon’s temperature varies from +250 degrees F in the sun to -250 degrees F in the shade." -- What is your argument? This argument specifically supports the varying illuminated and shadow temperatures on the moon. "Argument #2 – The LRRRs were placed on the moon using robotic landers. The lunar rock and soil samples were collected using unmanned robotic spacecraft." Slick -- better than having a human compensate for lunar topography irregularities in order to land on the lunar surface? "Contradiction – The ability to land a spacecraft on the moon was beyond 1960s technology, yet NASA used that same insufficient technology to land on the Moon. The contradiction is obvious." -- Hardly at all. All ya gotta do is point the spacecraft at an object (the moon) which you know is going to be in a given position two days later. Then all ya gotta do is circle the object and trim your orbit. No brainer stuff there and which can be calculated to sufficient accuracy using a slide rule. Finally, the Apollo astronauts, riding a lit rocket engine and in direct control of said rocket engine, have far higher chance of successfully landing on the lunar surface compared to any possible robotic mission. Besides, how can you account for the Apollo 11's video showing its decent engine's blast atop the lunar surface?
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 1, 2009 18:27:06 GMT -4
Well, like the title of my post says, I have begun to process some of the raw scans of the original Apollo mission photos. Presently I have concentrated on the Apollo 11 photos. Cosmic ray hits on the negatives show up "galore" on the Apollo 11 images. The problem with many of these strong "hard" (alpha particle) cosmic ray hits is that they produce "star" images which appear to be real. You have to learn to ignore these cosmic ray strikes, especially since images from roll 40 numbered 5967 through 5970 contain numerous "star" images which are not present in the other 5967 - 5970 photos. Well, actually, one star image "may" actually be real, but I have not confirmed this. In any event, assume that any "stars" in the Apollo photos are false and are caused by hard cosmic ray strikes onto the film emulsion. The point of my post: I spent over three days creating custom color correction and gamma profiles in order to compensate for the deterioration of the original Apollo films and the color imbalance of the scanner which NASA used to scan the Apollo films. I had to examine numerous photos in order to fully tweak my RGB color curves. Well, I will just put my results "out there" for all of you to examine: www.mem-tek.com/apollo/ISD.htmlI plan on cranking through far more of the Apollo images and posting them on my above web page. Needless to say, if I come across anything which is "suspicious", then I will let ya'all know. Another point is that I have tried to assure that the shown hues in my processed images are accurate. I had to compensate for the scanner irregularities as well as for the inherent response of the original film layers. Anyway, the color correction curves which I created assume that the film's green response is the most linear. Red and blue were adjusted accordingly relative to the film's green response since green is closest to visual yellow. I figure that the film's green emulsion would be what Kodak would strive to most accurately get accurate with regards to color balance. Let me know if you think that I need to apply further color tweaks to the images.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 1, 2009 17:54:31 GMT -4
Thanks. Yeah, I am brand new here on this really neat forum. My goal is to process and enhance every Apollo photo taken by the astronauts, and to provide related computer generated information supporting many of the photos. Anyway, I dare any hoax believer to have me tear into any Apollo photo in order to counter their "hoax" claims.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 1, 2009 17:47:43 GMT -4
Because this was beyond mere politics. In some matters, they are both in bed together.So you have to change history and create entirely new characters out of Nixon, Kennedy, and Johnson in order to get your theory to work. Sorry, you're just pretending the facts are other than what we see them to be. Delusion. Both sides wanted to give the impression that America had suceeded in the space race...No, Nixon didn't care about that. Nixon's foreign policy was based on entirely different principles such as detente. Good point. Remember, Nixon achieved a political coup by secretly talking to the Chinese. He opened up relations by saying, more or less, "we can tell you what the Russians are up to." In other words, Nixon's strategy was "the enemy of your enemy is your friend." Man, Nixon played that to the hilt and for all it was worth.
|
|