|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 12, 2009 1:02:36 GMT -4
It might be fun to point out that any increase in the star's brightness is matched by an equal increase in the sun's brightness and thus the change in camera settings to compensate for that would still prevent stars from showing up.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 10, 2009 17:31:00 GMT -4
The main two that stand out to me, one was see by multiple people, the other was seen multiple times, so I doubt that they were tricks of the light or halucinations.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 9, 2009 18:45:46 GMT -4
Well if he didn't get it right, no one would.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 9, 2009 18:21:43 GMT -4
So rather than turning his obit into an argument I thought I'd note these here. You know it's a major shame that he died without understanding the truth, these points are for the most part easily answered with little more than a basic knowledge of the Apollo record and science. • Astronauts (whom he called “astronauts”) could not have survived the radiation that they would have been exposed to while passing through the Van Allen radiation belt. Which we know is untrue, the radiation levels in the belt are well known and the amount of and type of material in the CM wall was enough to shield against the majority of the particles in the belts, and limited exposure meant low dosages ftom what did get through. • Photos taken on the moon do not show stars in the background. Probably the most debunked argument of the lot. • He pointed out the letter "C" on a rock in a photo insisting it was a Hollywood prop rock. Which has been shown to have been a hair on the photographic paper of one print. • The gloves on the Apollo space suits would have expanded in the vacuum of space to the point where they would be immobile. Unless of course the claimant has the pressure in the gloves wrong and they were specially engineered to have constant volume joints, oh they were weren't they.... • A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming? Easily found in the Apollo Records, a guy called Ed Fendell who was sitting in mission control and had been remote controlling the camera the entire time on Apollo 15, 16, and 17. • One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?Except that there are no photos of Armstrong decending, the Astronaut in the photo is BUZZ and it was taken by Armstrong. • The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.There are really two claims here, first the pressure was more than a football, and second that the suit would have puffed up. First, the pressure wasn't greater then a football. The NFL guidelines say the pressure in a football should be 11 and 13 psi. NASA states that the pressure in the suir was the partial pressure of O2, about 3-4 psi, a third of that in a football. Next, the expansion of the suit would only result is the whiz-kid engineers at ILC Industries hadn't thought of this when designing the suits, they did and so used special joints and restraint layers. Amazing what you can learn by reading the history. • The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the Moon that could be seen from Earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.This really is a case of "If I ran the zoo." Of course the amount of magnesium flares required to produce a visible light on the moon would not have been "Easy" to take, nor set off safetly. • Text from pictures show only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?Except that the reflected Astronaut does have a camera, it's on his chest, exactly where it should be, it's just the Rense never figured out where it was supposed to be. • The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering?This consists of five assumptions. This is the image in question. The shadow of the pole should appear straight and visible regardless of the terrain. That the shadow seen to the right is the flag, not John Young's and that the flag is moving. On the first, this is obviously false just by looking at the rest of the shadow, especially where it goes into the crater. If you cover the crater edge, you see exactly the same disjointedness as you see at the rock. The difference is that the rock and its shadow disguise the lowering of the terrian so you can't see the line extending from the pole, meaning that the dark line isn't a cable, it's the pole's shadow. By the way, another assumption, the pole's shadow passes over the top of the rock, not behind it. With that sorted, we now know that the large shadow on the ground which isn't connected to the pole's is John Young's. It's not connected to his feet because he's off the ground. The flag's shadow can be seen on the very edge of the image, but most of it is out of the shot. Finally, how can you tell if the flag is fluttering? It's a still shot. The jumps were captured on TV and the flag is quite obviously still, as well as the fact that photos of the flag before and later show the same shape. This means it was not moving. • How can the flag be brightly lit when its not facing any light? The same way they do on Earth, nylon is translucent and lights up when lit from either side. • And where, in all of these shots, are the stars? Maybe this is whay it's the most debunked, they ask it multiple times. Check out Exposure settings. • The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronaut's feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust.This is probably the most difficult of the lot as it requires MATH and PHYSICS to understand! The answer is rather simple when the calculation is done. To put it simply, the weight of an astronaut and gear distributed over the sole of one boot as occures when walking, creates slightly more pressure than the weight of the LM distributed over the surface area of its four landing pads. This means that while the astronaut plus gear is lighter overall, his mass is focused entirely onto a single point meaning greater pressure and thus deeper footprints, while the pressure from the mass of the LM is spread out and so each point receives less pressure on it. It's like the difference between being hit by a tennis racket and a cane. The tennis racket is heavier so has more energy, but that energy is spread out over a large area and so hurts less than the lighter cane which applies its energy to a much smaller area.
|
|
|
Gaza
Jan 9, 2009 17:11:43 GMT -4
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 9, 2009 17:11:43 GMT -4
this is because they care for human rights and they have a sense of morality. why to condemn them? It doesn't mater if they care for human rights and have a sense of morality, trying to force people into saying and acting in certain ways just because you believe they are correct, is wrong and immoral.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 9, 2009 17:01:26 GMT -4
Haven't read the book, but the movie is pretty good for Historical Accuracy. I suspect the book would be even more so considering that most movie directors have this complusion to change something.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 9, 2009 16:59:16 GMT -4
I have to say I'm very much in several minds about ghosts. My logical part says, there is no evidence and most of the sightings have a rational explaination. The regilious part of me says that Angellic beings can appear in forms that may explain those sightings we can't explain rationally, but I know I have no evidence to hold this, except for the final part of me that believes there is something to ghosts because people I know very well, including my gf, have seen them and short of them lying to me, something they have no reason to do, there is no natural or rational explanation for what they saw.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 6, 2009 16:34:48 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 6, 2009 16:32:14 GMT -4
Jason, faith isn't a work. Faith is a belief, it is something you accept, not something you have to work at.
|
|
|
Gaza
Jan 6, 2009 16:28:52 GMT -4
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 6, 2009 16:28:52 GMT -4
Actually you may be surprised at the Western Media, they generally splash the images of injured Palestinians all over the TV with counts of the dead and injured, footage of the families crying out, and then at the very end perhaps tag on that Israel had been hit by 20+ rockets eariler in the day but don't bother showing any images of the people injured or killed by those, or even say if there were injuries.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 4, 2009 19:56:23 GMT -4
You know... Since the admin of the board is Canadian, can French be considered a foriegn lanugage?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 31, 2008 15:30:46 GMT -4
I doubt that any HB has bothered to watch a full EVA, and you're right, cos, they are as boring as watching paint dry for the most part, and often the camera is somewhere other than what the Astronauts are doing, like on a really fasinating rock (note the scarcasm here), which of course it totally understandable if they were real (certain people on the ground watching were rather fasinated by rocks so I understand) but as a viewing spectacle watching a test pattern can be more exciting. It certainly isn't the way any dirtector would fake it. The other thing that jumps out at you is the reality of the area they are in what you compare the 360 TV pans to the Panoramas take by the Astronauts. Those shots certainly show they weren't on a set. The trouble is that no HB will bother watching the entire footage unless they are looking for ammo, and that means speeding through the copious boring parts or just watching bit of it on downloads.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 31, 2008 15:18:00 GMT -4
Maybe we could investigate the controversy between literate people and those bold sceptics who insist that marks on paper are just meaningless squiggles... Well we could if you want to argue that there is a contravery between those that think there was some sort of intelligence behind those squiggles and those that believe that they all happened by random chance..... ducks and runs..... ;D
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 30, 2008 16:41:23 GMT -4
Is it a little ironic that countries without a christian heritage are celebrating Christmas when western countries that have their culture and heritage based in Christianity are trying to get rid of it?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 30, 2008 14:03:10 GMT -4
I still think it's funny that that the HB's use Gus' complaints as a reason to believe a Hoax when NASA selected Gus because of his willingness to complain and get things done right. If you plan to put a new spacecraft through its paces, pick the guy that nitpicks and complains about everything for the shakedown Commander, he'll soon tell you what is going wrong.
|
|