|
Post by gwiz on Nov 27, 2006 7:58:22 GMT -4
the halo is there. Moreover, it is colorful, indicating serious presence of atmosphere, as one of the definitions say that halo is colored light broken by atmosphere. Why do you think that lens flare cannot produce colours?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 27, 2006 6:26:08 GMT -4
Looks like it's in front of the LM to me, you can follow the change in brightness as it goes across the edge of the LM. The actual bright spot itself appears to be a reflection off the MESA equipment tray which folds out from that side of the LM.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 21, 2006 11:32:10 GMT -4
It seems unlikely to me that he was not in any position to have significant interaction with the Apollo astronauts after the missions and they may well have had some reserve in speaking with him. I wouldn’t put much stock in his out of context quote. Rather I would believe him when he said that the Apollo astronauts were somewhat aloof with him. It makes more since. He wrote a book about his brief astronaut career called The Making of an Ex-astronaut. At that time, NASA were insisting that their scientist-astronauts train as pilots, and this was something he found difficult. In particular, around that time several astronauts were killed in T-38 accidents, and O'Leary didn't fancy the odds of his own survival if he continued to fly. His leaving the astronaut corps under those circumstances could well lead to him having a poor relationship with the test pilots.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 4, 2006 10:40:41 GMT -4
Aldrin is stnading in some kond of crater, as youcan see. But that would not explain why the moon's surface is lit brightly in Aldrin's extreme proximity, while being in virtual darkness further away. Aldrin is lit by a localised light source. Look at the photo again, the brightest ground is actually behind Aldrin. He is standing next to the LM, so the area behind him was swept by the LM exhaust during landing and is also the area which would be lit by reflected light from the shiny surfaces of the sunward side of the LM and to a lesser extent by reflected light from Aldrin's white suit. Two reasons why that area would be lighter. Aldrin is actually lit by direct sunlight coming from behind and to the left of him, edge of left arm and leg, left side of helmet, very over-exposed, and by light reflected from the lunar surface in front of him.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 17, 2006 5:29:21 GMT -4
does it come to your mind that Armstrong, for example, the man who is first to touch the moon, could be lying about such an endeavor with it still been happening? You're misunderstanding my posts again. I didn't say that I thought that any astronaut was lying, I said that even if one was, it would not invalidate the rest of the evidence for Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 17, 2006 4:14:41 GMT -4
So, nothing can convince you astronauts didn't go to the moon, even if they themselves were shown to be lying about it. I congraadultate you on your very, very rational and objective stance. That is not what we are saying. We say that it would take a lot more than an astronaut being caught lying to convince us that Apollo was a fake, because the astronaut statements are only one small part of the evidence in favour of Apollo. There is a whole mountain of other evidence, like the moon rocks and the tracking observations, that would also have to be shown to be faked to change our opinions.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 13, 2006 5:40:23 GMT -4
However, not maintaining eye contact could mean shyness or lying or any other thing, but it boils down to not being comfortable with what is being said. Incidentally, if a politician on the TV looks squarely at the camera and seems very confident, do you therefore believe that what he says is true?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 30, 2006 3:14:37 GMT -4
A good present day comparison is the Formula 1 driver Kimi Raikonnen. He always looks very uncomfortable in a post-race press conference, but that doesn't mean someone else was driving the car.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 4, 2006 10:54:23 GMT -4
I was wondering why this site: www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon2.htm which is a moon hoax debunking site reckons the dust was not kicked there as jay and others say it was. This is a disagreement between AB's. Well, they go off the rails right here: The astronauts walked all around the LM to document its post-landing condition, and they also walked into the two regions between the front leg and the side legs to unload equipment that was mounted on the sides of the LM.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 4, 2006 10:22:54 GMT -4
Er, Phil Plait doesn't say that all the dust would remain undisturbed, just the dust that isn't directly swept by the exhaust. In other words, no disageement.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 27, 2006 4:19:04 GMT -4
These days the factor in the lifespan of coms satellites is the propellant fuel used for orbit correction. After its useful life a sat _can_ be repositioned into elliptical orbit and used for short term comms. One of NASA's early test comsats, ATS 3, was used for several decades in such an orbit. Since its orbit drifted to a high inclination, the main use was as a link to the South Pole station.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 16, 2006 4:38:51 GMT -4
Cameron A guy who builds satellites for a living posted on here (dark conspiracy) that they use NASA data about the belts in their work and if they had it wrong the satellites wouldn't work. I posted this last month which seems relevant.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 23, 2006 13:26:16 GMT -4
They even reckon the Russians didn't spill the beans on a hoax because the cold war was fake. Doesn't a fake Cold War rather undermine the reason for faking Apollo - to appear to beat the Russians? PS just saw HC's latest post. Ask him how transparent the helmet was in the ultraviolet spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 23, 2006 12:46:29 GMT -4
Ask him for his source for his radiation belt data - not some conspiracy website but a scientific paper. If he can't answer, keep telling him how gullible he is to believe something with no evidence.
Ask him what radiation data current satellite builders use and how it differs from Apollo data.
Just keep asking.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 5, 2007 4:24:51 GMT -4
Therefor , I will create a 3D model based on my calculated results. That will produce usable results only if your calculations are correct. You'll need to convince us your calculations are a reasonable representation of the actual crater. Which means that from the right viewing angle, your model must match the photo in both crater outline and position of the tracks. If you don't get a match, you have not proved your case.
|
|