Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Feb 22, 2004, 04:36 pm

If you want proof. Go to an observatory and you can see the USA flag on the surface. This subject needs to be dropped. Look at it this way. There are too many workers at NASA to keep that bull crap a secret, someone would have proved it by now.

die Nullte · Feb 22, 2004, 05:31 pm

No, the flag and other equipment cannot be seen with a telescope from Earth. It's much too small.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 22, 2004, 07:21 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (die Nullte,)
No, the flag and other equipment cannot be seen with a telescope from Earth. It's much too small.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Low resolution and atmospheric is to blame huh?

And that guy claims to have a physics degree...

vagator · Feb 23, 2004, 05:25 pm

The Man on the Moon

I spent sometimes ago a quite long time looking at the moon pictures.

There are some problems with them

*multiple shadows inconsistent with sun lighting
*flag flagging in absence of atmosphere
*total absence of stars in the background
* Camera Shots angles inconsistent with the actual position of the camera in front of the astronauts body suites

For what concern the Tv films also in there there are massive inconsistences.

The moon module that depart from the moon surface without showing any engine flame.(just one example)

I tend to belive than when you have more than 3 funny things happening you should start to
smell rat.

die Nullte · Feb 23, 2004, 08:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Low resolution and atmospheric is to blame huh?

And that guy claims to have a physics degree...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What are you trying to say here? Are you saying the flag can be seen? It can't. No telescope yet built has the resolution to see it. Keck can't see it. Hubble can't see it. It's a simple fact of optics. As to your second sentence, I do not have and have never claimed to have a physics degree. However, those who believe Apollo was a hoax wouldn't be convinced if you could image the flag. They'd simply say the photos were faked. The evidence for the authenticity of the Apollo missions is immense (as described by AGN Fuel and one of the earlier posts). It has passed muster with scientists and qualified engineers worldwide for over 30 years. To those persuaded not to accept this evidence, one more item, no matter how derived, will make no difference.

Vagator: have you read any of the preceding messages in the thread? Most of the things you bring up have been explained. But I don't know what you mean about "multiple shadows." This doesn't even agree with most conspiracists' claims about these photos.

Speed Racer · Feb 24, 2004, 12:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
The Man on the Moon

I spent sometimes ago a quite long time looking at the moon pictures....

*flag flagging in absence of atmosphere....
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

How do you tell if a flag is flagging from a still picture? Seems to me that it would be hard to infer the cause of motion without seeing it the motion.

vagator · Feb 24, 2004, 01:39 pm

Here we go

A flag that is not flagging in absence of atmosphere has to be flat if it is not flat is flagging.

On top of that i saw some film footage with the flag flagging.

Now we will now the trouth about this one the day some probe will overfly and picturing the landing area.
The flag should be still there or not.

The hubble telescope could have done the job, nasa was asked by many to do so but it was to busy with supernovas.

Siomeday we will be illuminated or fulminated since than we will keep on speculkate.

Now what about the mars pictures.

We are getting only black and white one and this is odd.

I got few colored one that were sent down and published during the first days ot opportunity and spirit mission.

I, using autolevel on photoshop, got the real colors and actually mars it is not red at all.

If someone is interested ican email the nasa and my version.

Many other people on the net anyway has done that with the same result: blue sky and so on.

By the way if the sky is blu it means that is reflecting water lots and lots of water.
Last one if you go on the nasa site all raw picture section and click on opportunity picture you will get all the different cameras.
OK than choose tha navigation camera and click on sol 018.
You will get 8 thumbnails.
Click on the first from the left on the second row of picture.

Than save it and with anby photo software enlarge it.

Ta tan .... on the left of the picture you will see a little bipedal creature a sort of pokamon, how my daughter called it.

If you want email me and I'll send you the all think without wasting more time.

As above so is below
Marco

**Pooeypants** · Feb 24, 2004, 01:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (die Nullte,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Low resolution and atmospheric is to blame huh?

And that guy claims to have a physics degree...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What are you trying to say here? Are you saying the flag can be seen? It can't. No telescope yet built has the resolution to see it. Keck can't see it. Hubble can't see it. It's a simple fact of optics. As to your second sentence, I do not have and have never claimed to have a physics degree. However, those who believe Apollo was a hoax wouldn't be convinced if you could image the flag. They'd simply say the photos were faked. The evidence for the authenticity of the Apollo missions is immense (as described by AGN Fuel and one of the earlier posts). It has passed muster with scientists and qualified engineers worldwide for over 30 years. To those persuaded not to accept this evidence, one more item, no matter how derived, will make no difference.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Actually, my whole point was that we don't have the resolving power to see it...

vagator · Feb 24, 2004, 01:50 pm

Hey pooeypants

The hubble could do the job.

Haik · Feb 24, 2004, 03:16 pm

I think the real qustion is "does it matter?" There's really no visible benefit from the moon, unless theres something deep down beneath the surface we don't know about..And I know it was more of a 'competition' between the US and USSR at the time...

die Nullte · Feb 24, 2004, 03:32 pm

No, Hubble can't resolve any Apollo equipment on the Moon. Using standard formulae for resolution of a telescope in visible wavelengths, and assuming perfect optics, Hubble can't resolve anything smaller on the Moon than about 95 meters in size.

The_Broken_Column · Feb 24, 2004, 07:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
Here we go

A flag that is not flagging in absence of atmosphere has to be flat if it is not flat is flagging.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The flags had a telescopic arm attached to them so that they would extend and hold the flag in a "Square-like" form. On Apollo 11 the telescopic arm would not extend all the way and thus created a wrinkled look. The Astronauts liked this look as it made it look like it was waving in the wind, and thus never extended the arm all the way in any mission.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
On top of that i saw some film footage with the flag flagging.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If you saw this when an Astronaut was not placing the flag into the ground or or just afterwards, I will give you 1 million dollars.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
Now we will now the trouth about this one the day some probe will overfly and picturing the landing area.
The flag should be still there or not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

In the case of Apollo 11 it is knocked over as it was too close to the LM, but other than that you'll find all the others where they should be.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
The hubble telescope could have done the job, nasa was asked by many to do so but it was to busy with supernovas.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No it could not, the Hubble has a minimum resolution of about 100meters. It could barely find a football field on the Moon.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
Siomeday we will be illuminated or fulminated since than we will keep on speculkate.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

How about you just drop your stupid hoax theories and accept reality?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
Now what about the mars pictures.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Oh boy...here we go...

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
We are getting only black and white one and this is odd.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No it is not, if you know how a color camera works you'd understand why it is that they are in black and white. No camera on earth can take a picture of color. It must use filters in the appropriate amounts to add color to how we see it. Besides, color photos distract you from what you are looking for in Geology.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
I got few colored one that were sent down and published during the first days ot opportunity and spirit mission.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yeah mostly for publicity.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
I, using autolevel on photoshop, got the real colors and actually mars it is not red at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Mars is red, but its colors are not always as extreme as they are shown. Again, this is because we have to send a target to determine what the colors would be...see the above short explaination of why your camera can take color photos.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
If someone is interested ican email the nasa and my version.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I'm sure your version is much more biased.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
Many other people on the net anyway has done that with the same result: blue sky and so on.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The sky is only blue when the dust level is more minimal, other than that it does in fact have a pinkish tint.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
By the way if the sky is blu it means that is reflecting water lots and lots of water.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No you have it backwards. Water is blue because the sky is blue. The sky is blue because light entering through the thinner zenith is refracted to show a blue spectrum. When it enters the atmosphere at a thicker angle, such as the setting sun, it takes on a more red tint.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
Last one if you go on the nasa site all raw picture section and click on opportunity picture you will get all the different cameras.
OK than choose tha navigation camera and click on sol 018.
You will get 8 thumbnails.
Click on the first from the left on the second row of picture.

Than save it and with anby photo software enlarge it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

When you enlarge something it distorts pixels and thus the image.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
Ta tan .... on the left of the picture you will see a little bipedal creature a sort of pokamon, how my daughter called it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If you enlarged it and shrunk it repeatedly, you'd be left with a picture of a strange uniform color. So I doubt what your daughter saw really is very accurate.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
If you want email me and I'll send you the all think without wasting more time.

As above so is below
Marco <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No no, thank you, just doing my duty fighting bad science where ever it is.

Taibak · Feb 25, 2004, 04:27 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
The Man on the Moon

I spent sometimes ago a quite long time looking at the moon pictures.

There are some problems with them<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, all of these have have perfectly innocent explanations. Moreover, most of these are based on a poor understanding of physics and photography.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
*multiple shadows inconsistent with sun lighting<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not true. If there were multiple light sources there would be multiple shadows. No matter how diffuse the fill light is, you can't avoid this. Next time you go to a concert or to the theatre check it out for yourself.

Moreover, shadows formed by the Sun do not necessarily have to be parallel. The Moon's surface is not flat - as such, it will cause the shadows to bend. Foreshortening effects in the camera will also cause the shadows to appear non-parallel. See http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html for some good examples. Or, get yourself a camera and try it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
*flag flagging in absence of atmosphere<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There were three factors at work here. First, the flag left by the Apollo 11 astronauts was hung both from the flagpole and from a telescopic rod perpendicular to the flagpole. For whatever reason, the rod didn't extend, so the flag was hung a little bunched up. On later Apollo flights, the astronauts thought that looked better - ironically, because it looked like the flag was waving - so they did the same thing.

The other factor is known to anyone who has ever done a load of laundry in their life - the flag was wrinkled. The flag was folded and packed tightly into a storage compartment for the duration of the flight. When they unpacked it, it was wrinkled. Again, try this for yourself - take a shirt, wash it, iron it, and fold it. Then put a 14" TV on it and let it sit for a week.

The third factor is basic physics. The astronauts had to use force to get the flagpole into the ground. They were twisting the pole and/or hitting it with a hammer to drive the flagpole into place. In short, they were causing the pole to move. As long as the pole was moving, anything attached to it - like the flag - was moving. It's the same reason a flag waves when you swing a flagpole. As others have said, try to find a video of the flag waving when nobody was touching it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
**total absence of stars in the background<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Again, basic photography disproves this. Stars are faint objects, so you need a long exposure time to take a picture of them. The cameras used on the Apollo mission were set to a short exposure time and fast shutter speed. Again, try this yourself - get a camera, use a fast shutter speed intended for daylight use, and try to take a picture of the night sky.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
* Camera Shots angles inconsistent with the actual position of the camera in front of the astronauts body suites<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Some were altered for public relations purposes. If, for instance, you want to put a nice picture of Buzz Aldrin standing on the Moon, you crop out extraneous (and often boring) material to the sides. In any case, the originals are available - for free - from numerous sources. In fact, NASA has made every photo taken during the Moon landings available to the public.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
*For what concern the Tv films also in there there are massive inconsistences.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Huh?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
The moon module that depart from the moon surface without showing any engine flame.(just one example)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not all chemical reactions produce a visible flame. The chemicals used in the ascent module fall into that category.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
I tend to belive than when you have more than 3 funny things happening you should start to smell rat.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not necessarily a bad thing, but then you have to do your research to see if your suspiscions are justified. :-)

die Nullte · Feb 25, 2004, 05:39 pm

Excellent response, Taibak. However, the liftoff of the Apollo 17 ascent module does show flame as it tilts in its departure trajectory. You can clearly see the flame in the engine bell. See this: Apollo 17 ascent

Mozart1220 · Apr 2, 2004, 07:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)
Hey pooeypants

The hubble could do the job.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, it couldn't. End of subject.

Apr 5, 2004, 06:24 pm

I am old enough to remember the first moon landing. I also, remember that much of the footage we saw on TV was generated on a set to illustrate what was happening on the moon. Since there were mo cameras set up at the lunar landing site, NASA kindly set up models to show us what was happening. You might be looking at this footage and mistaking it for the actual footage from the moon. I've heard this discussion several times about whether we actually landed on the moon. I can assure you we did. We haven't gone back because we discovered the moon is not made of cheese. What a disapointment.

**Pooeypants** · Apr 6, 2004, 07:22 am

We need some politic drive to get the egos inflating once more, maybe if China announced plausible plans to go the Moon...the US will get their act together in a jiffy.

Apr 9, 2004, 11:34 pm

Good idea. We can't allow those chinks to get a leg up over US the US. If there were a military component, I imagine the US would be blasting off for Mars in a couple of years. Even without the threat of military high ground, I can see umpteen good reasons for colonizing the moon and Mars ASAP.

BendOverDemocrats · Apr 10, 2004, 01:26 am

The reason a moon base or space station are not the greatest idea is the radiation kills the people going to either place.
Unless we intent to only send dying cancer patients to the moon and space, we are going to potentially hurt the health of all we send there unless we can come up with better technology to stop radiation. So far we have not solved that issue to a point we can play in space very long.

Apr 10, 2004, 02:42 am

We have successfully sent people into orbit and to the moon without them dying or solar radiation. It is possible to shiels humans from such radiation. Ever heard of lead?

Feb 22, 2004, 07:21 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (die Nullte,) No, the flag and other equipment cannot be seen with a telescope from Earth. It's much too small.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Low resolution and atmospheric is to blame huh? And that guy claims to have a physics degree... War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 23, 2004, 08:32 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
die Nullte Sedimentary Rock Posts: 9	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Low resolution and atmospheric is to blame huh? And that guy claims to have a physics degree...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What are you trying to say here? Are you saying the flag can be seen? It can't. No telescope yet built has the resolution to see it. Keck can't see it. Hubble can't see it. It's a simple fact of optics. As to your second sentence, I do not have and have never claimed to have a physics degree. However, those who believe Apollo was a hoax wouldn't be convinced if you could image the flag. They'd simply say the photos were faked. The evidence for the authenticity of the Apollo missions is immense (as described by AGN Fuel and one of the earlier posts). It has passed muster with scientists and qualified engineers worldwide for over 30 years. To those persuaded not to accept this evidence, one more item, no matter how derived, will make no difference. Vagator: have you read any of the preceding messages in the thread? Most of the things you bring up have been explained. But I don't know what you mean about "multiple shadows." This doesn't even agree with most conspiracists' claims about these photos.

Feb 24, 2004, 12:52 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
Speed Racer Sedimentary Rock Posts: 2	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) The Man on the Moon I spent sometimes ago a quite long time looking at the moon pictures.... *flag flagging in absence of atmosphere.... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How do you tell if a flag is flagging from a still picture? Seems to me that it would be hard to infer the cause of motion without seeing it the motion. He’s a demon and he’s gonna be chasing after someone

Feb 24, 2004, 01:43 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (die Nullte,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Low resolution and atmospheric is to blame huh? And that guy claims to have a physics degree...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What are you trying to say here? Are you saying the flag can be seen? It can't. No telescope yet built has the resolution to see it. Keck can't see it. Hubble can't see it. It's a simple fact of optics. As to your second sentence, I do not have and have never claimed to have a physics degree. However, those who believe Apollo was a hoax wouldn't be convinced if you could image the flag. They'd simply say the photos were faked. The evidence for the authenticity of the Apollo missions is immense (as described by AGN Fuel and one of the earlier posts). It has passed muster with scientists and qualified engineers worldwide for over 30 years. To those persuaded not to accept this evidence, one more item, no matter how derived, will make no difference. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, my whole point was that we don't have the resolving power to see it... War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 24, 2004, 07:48 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
The_Broken_Column Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) Here we go A flag that is not flagging in absence of atmosphere has to be flat if it is not flat is flagging.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The flags had a telescopic arm attached to them so that they would extend and hold the flag in a "Square-like" form. On Apollo 11 the telescopic arm would not extend all the way and thus created a wrinkled look. The Astronauts liked this look as it made it look like it was waving in the wind, and thus never extended the arm all the way in any mission. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) On top of that i saw some film footage with the flag flagging.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If you saw this when an Astronaut was not placing the flag into the ground or or just afterwards, I will give you 1 million dollars. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) Now we will now the trouth about this one the day some probe will overfly and picturing the landing area. The flag should be still there or not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> In the case of Apollo 11 it is knocked over as it was too close to the LM, but other than that you'll find all the others where they should be. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) The hubble telescope could have done the job, nasa was asked by many to do so but it was to busy with supernovas.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No it could not, the Hubble has a minimum resolution of about 100meters. It could barely find a football field on the Moon. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) Siomeday we will be illuminated or fulminated since than we will keep on speculkate.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How about you just drop your stupid hoax theories and accept reality? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) Now what about the mars pictures.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Oh boy...here we go... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) We are getting only black and white one and this is odd.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No it is not, if you know how a color camera works you'd understand why it is that they are in black and white. No camera on earth can take a picture of color. It must use filters in the appropriate amounts to add color to how we see it. Besides, color photos distract you from what you are looking for in Geology. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) I got few colored one that were sent down and published during the first days ot opportunity and spirit mission.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yeah mostly for publicity. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) I, using autolevel on photoshop, got the real colors and actually mars it is not red at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Mars is red, but its colors are not always as extreme as they are shown. Again, this is because we have to send a target to determine what the colors would be...see the above short explaination of why your camera can take color photos. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) If someone is interested ican email the nasa and my version.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm sure your version is much more biased. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) Many other people on the net anyway has done that with the same result: blue sky and so on.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The sky is only blue when the dust level is more minimal, other than that it does in fact have a pinkish tint. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) By the way if the sky is blu it means that is reflecting water lots and lots of water.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No you have it backwards. Water is blue because the sky is blue. The sky is blue because light entering through the thinner zenith is refracted to show a blue spectrum. When it enters the atmosphere at a thicker angle, such as the setting sun, it takes on a more red tint. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) Last one if you go on the nasa site all raw picture section and click on opportunity picture you will get all the different cameras. OK than choose tha navigation camera and click on sol 018. You will get 8 thumbnails. Click on the first from the left on the second row of picture. Than save it and with anby photo software enlarge it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> When you enlarge something it distorts pixels and thus the image. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) Ta tan .... on the left of the picture you will see a little bipedal creature a sort of pokamon, how my daughter called it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If you enlarged it and shrunk it repeatedly, you'd be left with a picture of a strange uniform color. So I doubt what your daughter saw really is very accurate. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) If you want email me and I'll send you the all think without wasting more time. As above so is below Marco <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No no, thank you, just doing my duty fighting bad science where ever it is.

Feb 22, 2004, 04:36 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
theophysics Guest Posts: n/a	If you want proof. Go to an observatory and you can see the USA flag on the surface. This subject needs to be dropped. Look at it this way. There are too many workers at NASA to keep that bull crap a secret, someone would have proved it by now.

Feb 22, 2004, 05:31 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
die Nullte Sedimentary Rock Posts: 9	No, the flag and other equipment cannot be seen with a telescope from Earth. It's much too small.

Feb 23, 2004, 05:25 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
vagator Sedimentary Rock Posts: 7	The Man on the Moon I spent sometimes ago a quite long time looking at the moon pictures. There are some problems with them multiple shadows inconsistent with sun lighting flag flagging in absence of atmosphere total absence of stars in the background Camera Shots angles inconsistent with the actual position of the camera in front of the astronauts body suites For what concern the Tv films also in there there are massive inconsistences. The moon module that depart from the moon surface without showing any engine flame.(just one example) I tend to belive than when you have more than 3 funny things happening you should start to smell rat.

Feb 24, 2004, 01:39 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
vagator Sedimentary Rock Posts: 7	Here we go A flag that is not flagging in absence of atmosphere has to be flat if it is not flat is flagging. On top of that i saw some film footage with the flag flagging. Now we will now the trouth about this one the day some probe will overfly and picturing the landing area. The flag should be still there or not. The hubble telescope could have done the job, nasa was asked by many to do so but it was to busy with supernovas. Siomeday we will be illuminated or fulminated since than we will keep on speculkate. Now what about the mars pictures. We are getting only black and white one and this is odd. I got few colored one that were sent down and published during the first days ot opportunity and spirit mission. I, using autolevel on photoshop, got the real colors and actually mars it is not red at all. If someone is interested ican email the nasa and my version. Many other people on the net anyway has done that with the same result: blue sky and so on. By the way if the sky is blu it means that is reflecting water lots and lots of water. Last one if you go on the nasa site all raw picture section and click on opportunity picture you will get all the different cameras. OK than choose tha navigation camera and click on sol 018. You will get 8 thumbnails. Click on the first from the left on the second row of picture. Than save it and with anby photo software enlarge it. Ta tan .... on the left of the picture you will see a little bipedal creature a sort of pokamon, how my daughter called it. If you want email me and I'll send you the all think without wasting more time. As above so is below Marco

Feb 24, 2004, 01:50 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
vagator Sedimentary Rock Posts: 7	Hey pooeypants The hubble could do the job.

Feb 24, 2004, 03:16 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Haik Molten Ash Posts: 64	I think the real qustion is "does it matter?" There's really no visible benefit from the moon, unless theres something deep down beneath the surface we don't know about..And I know it was more of a 'competition' between the US and USSR at the time...

Feb 24, 2004, 03:32 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
die Nullte Sedimentary Rock Posts: 9	No, Hubble can't resolve any Apollo equipment on the Moon. Using standard formulae for resolution of a telescope in visible wavelengths, and assuming perfect optics, Hubble can't resolve anything smaller on the Moon than about 95 meters in size.

Feb 25, 2004, 04:27 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
Taibak Sedimentary Rock Posts: 2	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) The Man on the Moon I spent sometimes ago a quite long time looking at the moon pictures. There are some problems with them<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, all of these have have perfectly innocent explanations. Moreover, most of these are based on a poor understanding of physics and photography. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) multiple shadows inconsistent with sun lighting<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not true. If there were multiple light sources there would be multiple shadows. No matter how diffuse the fill light is, you can't avoid this. Next time you go to a concert or to the theatre check it out for yourself. Moreover, shadows formed by the Sun do not necessarily have to be parallel. The Moon's surface is not flat - as such, it will cause the shadows to bend. Foreshortening effects in the camera will also cause the shadows to appear non-parallel. See http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html for some good examples. Or, get yourself a camera and try it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)* flag flagging in absence of atmosphere<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There were three factors at work here. First, the flag left by the Apollo 11 astronauts was hung both from the flagpole and from a telescopic rod perpendicular to the flagpole. For whatever reason, the rod didn't extend, so the flag was hung a little bunched up. On later Apollo flights, the astronauts thought that looked better - ironically, because it looked like the flag was waving - so they did the same thing. The other factor is known to anyone who has ever done a load of laundry in their life - the flag was wrinkled. The flag was folded and packed tightly into a storage compartment for the duration of the flight. When they unpacked it, it was wrinkled. Again, try this for yourself - take a shirt, wash it, iron it, and fold it. Then put a 14" TV on it and let it sit for a week. The third factor is basic physics. The astronauts had to use force to get the flagpole into the ground. They were twisting the pole and/or hitting it with a hammer to drive the flagpole into place. In short, they were causing the pole to move. As long as the pole was moving, anything attached to it - like the flag - was moving. It's the same reason a flag waves when you swing a flagpole. As others have said, try to find a video of the flag waving when nobody was touching it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)* total absence of stars in the background<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Again, basic photography disproves this. Stars are faint objects, so you need a long exposure time to take a picture of them. The cameras used on the Apollo mission were set to a short exposure time and fast shutter speed. Again, try this yourself - get a camera, use a fast shutter speed intended for daylight use, and try to take a picture of the night sky. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)** * Camera Shots angles inconsistent with the actual position of the camera in front of the astronauts body suites<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Some were altered for public relations purposes. If, for instance, you want to put a nice picture of Buzz Aldrin standing on the Moon, you crop out extraneous (and often boring) material to the sides. In any case, the originals are available - for free - from numerous sources. In fact, NASA has made every photo taken during the Moon landings available to the public. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) For what concern the Tv films also in there there are massive inconsistences.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Huh? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,)* The moon module that depart from the moon surface without showing any engine flame.(just one example)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not all chemical reactions produce a visible flame. The chemicals used in the ascent module fall into that category. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) I tend to belive than when you have more than 3 funny things happening you should start to smell rat.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not necessarily a bad thing, but then you have to do your research to see if your suspiscions are justified. :-)

Feb 25, 2004, 05:39 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
die Nullte Sedimentary Rock Posts: 9	Excellent response, Taibak. However, the liftoff of the Apollo 17 ascent module does show flame as it tilts in its departure trajectory. You can clearly see the flame in the engine bell. See this: Apollo 17 ascent

Apr 2, 2004, 07:01 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
Mozart1220 Igneous Magma Posts: 687	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (vagator,) Hey pooeypants The hubble could do the job.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, it couldn't. End of subject. Big Jr is watching you!

Apr 5, 2004, 06:24 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	I am old enough to remember the first moon landing. I also, remember that much of the footage we saw on TV was generated on a set to illustrate what was happening on the moon. Since there were mo cameras set up at the lunar landing site, NASA kindly set up models to show us what was happening. You might be looking at this footage and mistaking it for the actual footage from the moon. I've heard this discussion several times about whether we actually landed on the moon. I can assure you we did. We haven't gone back because we discovered the moon is not made of cheese. What a disapointment.

Apr 6, 2004, 07:22 am	#37 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	We need some politic drive to get the egos inflating once more, maybe if China announced plausible plans to go the Moon...the US will get their act together in a jiffy. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Apr 9, 2004, 11:34 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	Good idea. We can't allow those chinks to get a leg up over US the US. If there were a military component, I imagine the US would be blasting off for Mars in a couple of years. Even without the threat of military high ground, I can see umpteen good reasons for colonizing the moon and Mars ASAP.

Apr 10, 2004, 01:26 am	#39 (permalink) (top)
BendOverDemocrats Molten Ash Posts: 55	The reason a moon base or space station are not the greatest idea is the radiation kills the people going to either place. Unless we intent to only send dying cancer patients to the moon and space, we are going to potentially hurt the health of all we send there unless we can come up with better technology to stop radiation. So far we have not solved that issue to a point we can play in space very long.

Apr 10, 2004, 02:42 am	#40 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	We have successfully sent people into orbit and to the moon without them dying or solar radiation. It is possible to shiels humans from such radiation. Ever heard of lead?