ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: OhPulease on September 09, 2015, 12:54:30 PM
-
This might be a short first thread but here goes:
Patrick Moore asked this at the Press Conference-
"I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?"
Michael Collins response was
"I saw none"
The Hoaxers seem to jump on this but as he never walked on the moon in my eyes this was an obvious joke.
Am I missing something here?
-
Welcome to the board.
Specifically the questions refer to stars in the solar corona, which can be viewed from lunar orbit.
I have compiled a list of Apollo astronaut quotes regarding stars :)
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/staquotes.html
-
This might be a short first thread but here goes:
Patrick Moore asked this at the Press Conference-
"I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?"
Michael Collins response was
"I saw none"
The Hoaxers seem to jump on this but as he never walked on the moon in my eyes this was an obvious joke.
Am I missing something here?
Most of what I have seen was an answer to a questioned not directed at Collins. All of them indicated they could see stars through optical devices, there by blocking out the effect of the bright Sun. I believe that all indicated stars were visible on the far side of the Moon, again the Sun was blocked. HB's take many activities out of context and build a case of "anomalies".
I haven't looked at obm list but I'm sure if you take the comments out of context, it could be argued are contradictory. View all the circumstances and that contradiction evaporates.
-
I'm Sorry but I might have been misunderstood. I believe we went to the moon 100 percent.
I was trying to point out the fact that the press conference is cut into small segments by certain people and my argument is that as part of that they quote or show the Collins comment, this just happens to be a bugbear of mine.
-
I'm Sorry but I might have been misunderstood. I believe we went to the moon 100 percent.
I was trying to point out the fact that the press conference is cut into small segments by certain people and my argument is that as part of that they quote or show the Collins comment, this just happens to be a bugbear of mine.
I didn't take you to be a HB, just asking why they(HB's) make big deals out of such statements.
-
Hi there! Welcome to the board!
The problem with this quote is that it conflates two things (as you point out, Collins didn't walk on the surface of the Moon. The question and answer really is:
"And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?"
Michael Collins response was
"I saw none"
That's like asking someone on Earth, "When you stared directly at the lit lightbulb, could you see the manufacturer's name on the top?" and receiving the answer "No." It refers to one specific situation where it would be very hard to see the stars, or the manufacturer's name. It has no relevance to any other situation where without the intense glare things would be visible.
The stars were not visible to Collins when he looked at the solar corona. That has no bearing on whether they could be seen at other times, or not.
-
Here's (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html) what Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong said when they passed into the night of the moon while in Lunar orbit. "Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns. "
You'll find plenty of other references to stars if you go Ctrl (or Command)+F and type in (without quotes) "stars".
-
Sorry
I know they saw stars and navigated by them, Anyone who even looked at the apollo experience reports if nothing else would know. My interest is against the rubbish Collins argument. I fully believe we went. I want to know why some people bring up the fact that he said "I Didn't see any" stars.
Maybe I'm getting a bit OTT.
-
It is typical HB fare to use the "Fallacy of Quoting out of Context" (also called "quote mining") . They will quote only the part of a phrase, or a few words, and then trumpet those words as meaning something they want it to mean, when "in context" they would have meant something entirely different, and even the opposite of what the HB is trying make them mean.
I'll give a simple example.
In her review of the movie "Flying Piranhas 2", Anne Newbury, the NZ Listener Movie Reviewer said...
"Flying Piranhas 2 is a great movie if you want to ignore the obvious plot holes, the bad acting and the disjointed direction. If you missed Flying Piranhas I, here's your chance to miss the sequel!"
Someone then quoted Anne
"Flying Piranhas 2 is a great movie"
- Anne Newbury, NZ Listener
That quote is world for word exactly what Anne said, but removing it from its context completely changes its meaning to the opposite of what she really meant.
-
It is typical HB fare to use the "Fallacy of Quoting out of Context" (also called "quote mining") . They will quote only the part of a phrase, or a few words, and then trumpet those words as meaning something they want it to mean, when "in context" they would have meant something entirely different, and even the opposite of what the HB is trying make them mean.
I'll give a simple example.
In her review of the movie "Flying Piranhas 2", Anne Newbury, the NZ Listener Movie Reviewer said...
"Flying Piranhas 2 is a great movie if you want to ignore the obvious plot holes, the bad acting and the disjointed direction. If you missed Flying Piranhas I, here's your chance to miss the sequel!"
Someone then quoted Anne
"Flying Piranhas 2 is a great movie"
- Anne Newbury, NZ Listener
That quote is world for word exactly what Anne said, but removing it from its context completely changes its meaning to the opposite of what she really meant.
Different country but was it the Blunder who took the comment out of context. That is one of his favorite tactics.
-
It is typical HB fare to use the "Fallacy of Quoting out of Context" (also called "quote mining") . They will quote only the part of a phrase, or a few words, and then trumpet those words as meaning something they want it to mean, when "in context" they would have meant something entirely different, and even the opposite of what the HB is trying make them mean.
I'll give a simple example.
In her review of the movie "Flying Piranhas 2", Anne Newbury, the NZ Listener Movie Reviewer said...
"Flying Piranhas 2 is a great movie if you want to ignore the obvious plot holes, the bad acting and the disjointed direction. If you missed Flying Piranhas I, here's your chance to miss the sequel!"
Someone then quoted Anne
"Flying Piranhas 2 is a great movie"
- Anne Newbury, NZ Listener
That quote is world for word exactly what Anne said, but removing it from its context completely changes its meaning to the opposite of what she really meant.
Different country but was it the Blunder who took the comment out of context. That is one of his favorite tactics.
The Blunder is the master of the quote mine. The whole premise of some of the utter BS this guy spouts is based entirely on intentional misrepresentation of the words of Astronauts, Engineers and Space Scientists. If you ever get a chance to see his "rebuttal" of S.G. Collins "Moon Hoax: Not" video, you will see that it is jam packed with mined quotes, half-truths and deliberate misrepresentations of what Collins actually said.
Collins then posted a second video, "For Jarrah", in which he systematically exposed the Blunder's quote mining technique, and ruthlessly took him down, piece by piece. It was a very amusing & entertaining watch.
-
The Blunder is the master of the quote mine. The whole premise of some of the utter BS this guy spouts is based entirely on intentional misrepresentation of the words of Astronauts, Engineers and Space Scientists. If you ever get a chance to see his "rebuttal" of S.G. Collins "Moon Hoax: Not" video, you will see that it is jam packed with mined quotes, half-truths and deliberate misrepresentations of what Collins actually said.
Collins then posted a second video, "For Jarrah", in which he systematically exposed the Blunder's quote mining technique, and ruthlessly took him down, piece by piece. It was a very amusing & entertaining watch.
I watched both Collins video but no the Blunder. I have just refused to populate his "views" with my visits. However, after watching the series on the Apollo1 fire(last videos BTW), I did see a lot of the quote mining you reference. There was quite a bit of circular referencing also ie. saying one thought and then a reversing view sometime later.
-
I'd probably prefer the latter to the former. Seriously, at least David Percy is somewhat pleasant to listen to (though the smug, oh the smug!) and Bart Sibrel knows to hire people who are good at narration, but Jarrah? Like listening to a cat claw at a blackboard through the same filters they use to make Dalek voices.
As for stars, the logic is based on 'common sense' (stars are visible usually when the sky is dark on Earth) and movies, which pretty much inevitably show stars in space, no matter the lighting conditions.
-
I hadn't thought of Daleks in ages. They did have a screech.
-
I hadn't thought of Daleks in ages. They did have a screech.
Exterminate!
Exterminate!
Exterminate!
EXTERMINATE!!
-
Quit hiding your feelings, how do you really feel about Daleks. :)
-
There's an out-take I saw once. The poor Dalek (who was also the voice actor in this case) didn't hear "cut" and of course couldn't see much of anything. So he kept going, "exterminate! Exterminate! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINEAATE!!!" with each phrase somehow managing to get it louder and angrier (and higher)....
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/450px-Punch_daleks.jpg)
-
Poor babies, they just can't win this one.
-
To be fair, Four sneered at them when they couldn't climb up a rope to pursue him. But Seven knew better -- although it still startled Ace when the Dalek showed off it's new ability to "Elevate! Elevate!!" ...err, you know the pun by now. By New Who, they are swooping all over the landscape.
-
Thanks for the responses all. Didn't intend to bail last night but something came up - please, no elevate jokes!
I'd rather not Ace came into the thread, in my opinion she helped to mark the terminal decline of the program at the time.
When comparing Blunder to the Daleks I suddenly feel a lot of sympathy for the Daleks, also, their physics might be Dr Who land but they are still more internally consistent than the Blunders.
-
Look what I found last year in a yard sale 2 blocks from my house.
(http://home.comcast.net/~mcluster/Dalek.jpg)
-
Look what I found last year in a yard sale 2 blocks from my house.
(http://home.comcast.net/~mcluster/Dalek.jpg)
Is it a TV artifact or a custom built by some Dr. Who enthusiast? Looks fairly accurate, but that was 20 years ago and I suffer from CRS.
-
The family built it and put their daughter in it in a small electric wheelchair. It moved around, had lights and sounds, the top swiveled and it had remote control functions as well. The Dalek attended numerous public events and promotions. They were selling it for $250 totally gutted inside.
-
Patrick Moore asked this at the Press Conference-
"I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?"
Michael Collins response was
"I saw none"
The Hoaxers seem to jump on this but as he never walked on the moon in my eyes this was an obvious joke...
"I saw none" is not the answer Collins gave, and he didn't immediately answer Moore. Here is Moore's question and the three responses as given by the astronauts. They come from this link:
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html
For clarity, I've fixed a typo (varlous to various) and changed "Reporter" to "Moore" and the second "Aldrin" to "Collins" to match the video.
MOORE I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ALDRIN The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. The footprint would penetrate a half an inch or sometimes only a quarter of an inch and gave a very firm response. In other regions near the edges of these craters we could find that the foot would sink down maybe 2, 3, possibly 4 inches and in the slope, of course, the various edges of the footprint might go up to 6 or 7 inches. In compacting this material it would tend to produce a slight sideways motion as it was compacted on the material underneath it. So we feel that you cannot always tell by looking at the surface what the exact resistance will be as your foot sinks into a point of firm contact. So one must be quite cautious in moving around in this rough surface.
ARMSTRONG We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
COLLINS I don't remember seeing any.
As you can see, Collins's comment directly follows Armstrong talking about them photographing the solar corona, which they did when all three were in lunar orbit, not when Armstrong and Aldrin were on the surface. So although Mike Collins has a great sense of humour, he's not joking here and is just making a factual comment about not remembering seeing stars in the corona.
Other posters have given good answers about why hoax-believers quote things out of context. In ten words, "incompetence, inaccuracy, and maybe even a deliberate intent to deceive."
Edited to add: And welcome to ApolloHoax.
-
...
Other posters have given good answers about why hoax-believers quote things out of context. In ten words, "incompetence, inaccuracy, and maybe even a deliberate intent to deceive."
Surely you don't infer that HB's don't know the "truth"? ::)
-
Thanks for the welcome folks. I just read it as when (apologies I misquoted) he said he didn't remember seeing any he laughed.
I took this as a humorous aside, I did say at the end of my original post I might be missing something, but it just struck me that he was joking about not being on the surface.
I have the full Press conference along with the transcript which includes images of the slides they were referring to (as does everyone here I assume as unlike a certain persons 'super secret film of Earth from Apollo' they are easily available. It just struck me that I thought he was making a joke.
Editing to add. Sorry Kiwi, having gone back and checked. Those are exactly the pages I am referring to above. Please put it down to new poster blues.
-
I have the full Press conference along with the transcript which includes images of the slides they were referring to...
Link to the cover page of the press conference, which was on 12 August 1969:
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/cover.html
Worthy of note in the questions are the usual cringeworthy "how did it feel" queries, which few of the early astronauts, other than John Glenn, were any good at answering. NASA hadn't trained them for public speaking.
Mike Collins summed it up quite well in the extras to the DVD of the movie, "In the Shadow of the Moon":--
Behind the Shadow
6. How do I feel?
0:00:10 Mike Collins: Here is one of the most momentous occasions. For the first time you've got three human beings that are leaving their home planet. They're leaving Mother Earth, they're flying off to God knows where — we hope the moon. Never been done before. So what do you say? You say, "Apollo 8, you are Go for TLI. Over."
0:00:30 Mike Collins: It should've been, I don't know, some kind of invitation or a salutation or important message or some better way of communicating than saying, "You're Go for TLI." But any way, that was the way the space programme was.
0:00:48 Columbia above the Sea of Tranquillity. Crater Maskelyne, 24 km diameter, top right.
0:00:51 Maskelyne W, "Wash Basin", top centre.
0:00:53 Maskelyne B, top right.
0:00:57 Columbia next to Boot Hill, south of the east side of Maskelyne. Duke Island, south of the west side of Maskelyne, at 10:30 o'clock from Columbia.
0:00:59 Collins: I think the space programme would've been considerably different in the public view if astronauts had been trained differently or if they were different people.
0:01:01 Sidewinder Rille left of top centre.
0:01:13 Collins: We said earlier that being a military test pilot was the best background from a technical point of view, but was probably, I would add, the worst background from a public relations, of a public understanding, or an emotional point of view.
0:01:30 Collins: We were trained to transmit vital pieces of information. If someone had said from the ground to me in space, "Well, how do you feel about that?" I'd have said, "What? Huh?" You know, I don't know how I feel about that. "You want the temperature? You want the pressure? You want the velocity? You want the altitude? What do you mean how do I feel about that?"
0:01:54 Collins: It was not within our ken to share emotions or to utter extraneous information. Yes, things were terse, they were clipped. We were trained to give those essential pieces of information.
0:02:12 Collins: It seems, maybe, rather short-sighted, almost cruel, you might say, not to want to share anything, but if, on the other hand, you think about a whole sky full of airplanes, you've got 30 or 40 jet fighters all up there all on the same frequency, and saying, "Blue Four, say your fuel state."
0:02:35 Collins: "Well, I feel that my fuel state is just something that's so overwhelming to me I, I just am very reluctant but I have to report that I'm down to 1200 pounds."
0:02:45 Collins: Well, that guy would get grounded. He's supposed to, "Blue Four, 1200 pounds."
0:02:50 Collins: So, perhaps that helps explain why we were so "tight-lipped", you might say.
-
Whenever I read HB's using the astronauts' lack of emotional response as evidence of guilt or shame or something, I'm reminded of Jodie Foster's line in Contact ;
Some celestial event. No - no words. No words to describe it. Poetry! They should've sent a poet. So beautiful. So beautiful... I had no idea.
(Although, it has to be said that some of the astronauts did better than OK in this regard - 'One small step for a man' is very resonant, even if it was planned beforehand, and 'Magnificent desolation' is a powerful and poetic phrase).
-
Drat, on the tip of my tongue ...
Which astronaut said, "They should have sent a poet?"
-
Most sources point to Sagan's Contact as the source. However, this link, http://justadandak.com/we-should-have-sent-a-poet-not-a-pilot/ , attributes it to Sergei Korolev after Gargarin tried to describe his flight.
-
Most sources point to Sagan's Contact as the source. However, this link, http://justadandak.com/we-should-have-sent-a-poet-not-a-pilot/ , attributes it to Sergei Korolev after Gargarin tried to describe his flight.
He sure guided the Russian space program and attempted to duplicate Apollo, but lack of resources and a mismanaged economy doomed the project.
-
Not to mention a late start, a competing design, and dying during an appendectomy.
Fred
-
Not to mention a late start, a competing design, and dying during an appendectomy.
Fred
I don't think they had a late start, but all of the rest, yes. And he had to keep Khrushchev happy with firsts that diverted work from being conducted in a systematic way.
I found this program concerning the N-1 very good.
-
It's really too bad. I would love to have both the US and USSR land on the moon. It's maybe possible it would have driven both nations to continue BEO efforts, though it's doubtful it would have driven them to Mars, as much as one might hope it.
-
I have the full Press conference along with the transcript which includes images of the slides they were referring to (as does everyone here I assume as unlike a certain persons 'super secret film of Earth from Apollo' they are easily available. It just struck me that I thought he was making a joke.
Editing to add. Sorry Kiwi, having gone back and checked. Those are exactly the pages I am referring to above. Please put it down to new poster blues.
That's okay. I screwed up too when I repeated what I'd heard from someone else about when the crew photographed the solar corona -- in lunar orbit. Have now checked my version of all three voice transcripts amalgamated, and it wasn't during lunar orbit. It was while approaching the moon and between about 11,232 and 9,761 nautical miles away. Between Ground Elapsed Times 71:34:00 and 72:00:00.
Here's everything from the transcripts:--
71:31:xx PAO: This is Apollo Control at 71 hours, 31 minutes. Apollo 11's distance from the moon now 11,232 nautical miles approaching at a velocity of 4,141 feet per second.
71:33:08 Aldrin: Houston. Apollo 11.
71:33:12 Capcom: Apollo 11, this is Houston. Go ahead. Over.
71:33:25 Capcom: Apollo 11, this is Houston. Go ahead. Over.
71:33:40 Capcom: Apollo 11, this is Houston. Go ahead. Over.
71:33:47 Armstrong: Houston, do you read Apollo 11?
71:33:49 Capcom: Roger, 11. We're reading you loud and clear now. We were down in the noise as we switched antennas a minute or so ago. Over.
71:34:00 Collins: Roger. What sort of settings could you recommend for the solar corona? We've got the Sun right behind the edge of the Moon now.
71:34:12 Capcom: Roger.
71:34:16 Aldrin: It's quite an eerie sight. There is a very marked three-dimensional aspect of having the Sun's corona coming from behind the Moon the way it is.
71:34:27 Capcom: Roger.
71:34:31 Aldrin: And it looks as though - I guess what's giving it that three-dimensional effect is the earthshine. I can see Tycho fairly clearly - at least if I'm right side-up, I believe it's Tycho, in moonshine - I mean, in earthshine. And, of course, I can see the sky is lit all the way around the Moon, even on the limb of it where there's no earthshine or sunshine.
71:35:40 Capcom: Apollo 11, this is Houston. Over.
71:35:45 Aldrin: Go ahead.
71:35:47 Capcom: Roger. If you'd like to take some pictures, we recommend using magazine Uniform which is loaded with high speed black and white film, interior lights off, electric Hasselblad with the 80-millimeter lens. And you're going to have to hand-hold it, I guess. We're recommending an f-stop of 2.8, and we'd like to get a sequence of time exposures. Over.
71:36:24 Aldrin: Okay. You want magazine Uniform instead of magazine Tango ? Over.
71:36:30 Capcom: Roger. We're not trying to get you all wrapped up in a procedure here. This is on a not-to-interfere basis, of course. Over.
71:36:43 Aldrin: Okay.
71:36:46 Capcom: And on the exposures we're looking for an eighth of a second, a half a second. And, if you think you can steady the camera against anything to get longer exposures, 2 seconds, 4 seconds, and 8 seconds. Over.
71:37:11 Aldrin: Roger. We copy.
71:37:13 Capcom: Roger. Out.
71:39:15 Capcom: Apollo 11, Houston. Over.
71:39:23 Collins: Go ahead, Houston.
71:39:25 Capcom: Roger. We'd like to do a little Cryo tank balancing. So, if you could position the oxygen tank number 1 heater switch to Off and hydrogen tank 2 heater switch to Off leaving all the rest of the Cryo switches the same, we'll let it run that way for a few hours. Over.
71:39:48 Collins: Okay. Stand by one on those switches. We'll get them in a minute.
71:39:51 Capcom: Roger. And how far out can you see the corona extending? Over.
71:40:13 Armstrong: ... bit like zodiacal light. It keeps going out farther and farther. We'll talk about it a little more later.
71:40:31 Capcom: Roger. Out.
71:43:11 Armstrong: ... We've got quite a few pictures ...
71:44:06 Capcom: Apollo 11, this is Houston. I think we have Comm again. We heard you calling. Over.
71:44:27 Capcom: Apollo 11, this is Houston. Were you calling? Over.
71:44:48 Collins: Houston, Apollo 11. Understand you want the heaters Off for hydrogen tank 1 and oxygen tank 1. Is that affirmative ?
71:44:56 Capcom: That's negative, Mike. Hydrogen tank number 2 heaters Off and oxygen tank number 1 heaters Off.
71:45:05 Collins: Okay.
71:45:07 Capcom: Roger. Out.
71:45:12 Collins: I have hydrogen tank number 2 heaters Off; I have oxygen tank number 1 heaters Off.
71:45:18 Capcom: Roger. Out.
71:52:15 Collins: Houston. Apollo 11. The earthshine coming through the window is so bright you can read a book by it.
71:52:24 Capcom: Oh, very good.
71:52:xx PAO: That was Mike Collins reporting.
71:56:00 Armstrong: And, Houston, I'd suggest that along the ecliptic line we can see the corona light out to two lunar diameters from this location. The bright light only extends out about an eighth to a quarter of the lunar radius.
71:56:35 Capcom: Roger. Understand that you can see the corona approximately 200 solar diameters out along the ecliptic, and the bright light extends out approximately one-eighth to one-quarter lunar radius. Over.
71:56:52 Armstrong: That's two lunar - two lunar diameters along the ecliptic in the bright part, right; a quarter to an eighth of a lunar radius out, and that's perpendicular to the ecliptic line on the South Pole.
71:57:07 Capcom: Roger.
71:57:xx PAO: That last transmission was from Neil Armstrong.
71:59:20 Armstrong: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.
71:59:52 Capcom: I guess it has turned into night up there really, hasn't it ?
71:59:58 Armstrong: Really has.
72:04:57 Capcom: 11, this is Houston. Go ahead. Over.
72:07:xx PAO: This is Apollo Control at 72 hours, 7 minutes. Apollo 11 is 9,761 nautical miles from the moon, velocity 4,217 feet per second. Weight 9612 pounds.
Thanks to Apollo 13, I always cringe a little when I read talk about the cryo tanks and heaters.
-
Most sources point to Sagan's Contact as the source. However, this link, http://justadandak.com/we-should-have-sent-a-poet-not-a-pilot/ , attributes it to Sergei Korolev after Gargarin tried to describe his flight.
He sure guided the Russian space program and attempted to duplicate Apollo, but lack of resources and a mismanaged economy doomed the project.
About 10 years ago, there was a four or six part docu-drama that focused on Korolev and von Braun. Can't remember what it was called... maybe Rocket Race or something like that. I think it was recently re-run on the History Channel.
I was interesting to see the different approaches the Soviets and the American took to trying to solve the same problems within the constraints of their differing technologies, budgets and political climate.
-
Space Race (2005)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0461887
-
The interesting thing about that press conference was the body language of the atronautas, nervous and tense by the obligation they had to lie and invent.
Although one can not draw definitive conclusions from the words of Collins, is the Armstrong himself who says very clearly that the stars are not visible from space, he says in the interview textual happened to share "the Earth is the only visible objetct" (other than the sun).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o)
Nor did they show any interest in photographing the Earth as only background object appears as a handful of images:
(http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/482577main_20100916_2b.jpg)
Astronaut flag and in the foreground, background little Earth.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/350wf94.jpg)
astronaut again in the foreground, background little Earth.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/znvipg.jpg)
LM foreground, background little Earth.
The strange behavior of astronauts, also showed greater interest in photographing the Earth from space, one assumes that it would take a picture to 50,000 km away, another 100,000 km, a halfway to the Moon (about 190,000 km ) with the Earth getting smaller, as the back, but no, there are only occasional image without more information accompanying.
I think the Three Stooges sent instead of the assumptions of intrigue heroes of Apollo...
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_s_30zQFJp4g/SDi9MKypNjI/AAAAAAAAESw/CuleP1HcRQA/s320/3%2Bstooges%2Bin%2Borbit%2Btitle%2Bcard.jpg)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-2AWh4pm4b2Q/TYlBdn6-slI/AAAAAAAAATU/nDWX4MWU-yI/s640/3+stooges+2.PNG)
-
The interesting thing about that press conference was the body language of the atronautas, nervous and tense by the obligation they had to lie and invent.
Old argument. No, you're not an expert in "body language," and no, you aren't magically clairvoyant enough to know what, if anything, they might have been tense about.
Although one can not draw definitive conclusions from the words of Collins...
Yet you go on to do just that.
Nor did they show any interest in photographing the Earth...
For three reasons. First, they were there to explore the Moon. Second, it was almost directly overhead as seen from most of the landing sites. And third, a Hasselblad with a wide-angle lens is close to the most useless thing for astronomical photography.
The strange behavior of astronauts...
No, you're just making up things you think they should have done and then calling it strange that they didn't. Why do you think that's any sort of argument.
-
The interesting thing about that press conference was the body language of the atronautas, nervous and tense by the obligation they had to lie and invent.
and now you are an expert in body language? Try viewing this. it is the same conference taken in context Although one can not draw definitive conclusions from the words of Collins, is the Armstrong himself who says very clearly that the stars are not visible from space, he says in the interview textual happened to share "the Earth is the only visible objetct" (other than the sun).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o)
Nor did they show any interest in photographing the Earth as only background object appears as a handful of images:
(http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/482577main_20100916_2b.jpg)
Astronaut flag and in the foreground, background little Earth.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/350wf94.jpg)
astronaut again in the foreground, background little Earth.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/znvipg.jpg)
LM foreground, background little Earth.
The strange behavior of astronauts, also showed greater interest in photographing the Earth from space, one assumes that it would take a picture to 50,000 km away, another 100,000 km, a halfway to the Moon (about 190,000 km ) with the Earth getting smaller, as the back, but no, there are only occasional image without more information accompanying.
They did take images from many distances, you are too lazy to look them upI think the Three Stooges sent instead of the assumptions of intrigue heroes of Apollo...
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_s_30zQFJp4g/SDi9MKypNjI/AAAAAAAAESw/CuleP1HcRQA/s320/3%2Bstooges%2Bin%2Borbit%2Btitle%2Bcard.jpg)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-2AWh4pm4b2Q/TYlBdn6-slI/AAAAAAAAATU/nDWX4MWU-yI/s640/3+stooges+2.PNG)
-
The interesting thing about that press conference was the body language of the atronautas, nervous and tense by the obligation they had to lie and invent.
In your opinion, which is pretty much worthless because you know nothing.
Although one can not draw definitive conclusions from the words of Collins, is the Armstrong himself who says very clearly that the stars are not visible from space, he says in the interview textual happened to share "the Earth is the only visible objetct" (other than the sun).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o)
That is not what he said. He does not say that stars are not visible from space. You made that up. He says he couldn't see them from the lunar surface. Please tell us under what circumstances you think stars should be visible from the lunar surface.
Nor did they show any interest in photographing the Earth as only background object appears as a handful of images:
..snip photographs...
If they had taken hundreds of pictures of Earth (like the ones they took from cislunar space and from lunar orbit) would you be happy, or would you by whining about them not taking enough photos of the moon?
The strange behavior of astronauts, also showed greater interest in photographing the Earth from space, one assumes that it would take a picture to 50,000 km away, another 100,000 km, a halfway to the Moon (about 190,000 km ) with the Earth getting smaller, as the back, but no, there are only occasional image without more information accompanying.
You are, as usual, spectacularly inaccurate. They took photos regularly and lots of them. Why don't you know that? Why do you persist in posting such ignorant drivel?
I think the Three Stooges sent instead of the assumptions of intrigue heroes of Apollo...
What you think is as irrelevant as it is uninformed.
-
Oh, tarkus. ::)
If you came a quarter million miles, would you be spending all your time taking snapshots of the place you just came from, or would you be focusing most of your efforts on documenting this place you came all that way, trained all those years for? Sure, some photos were appropriate, and they took them, but the moon was the focus.
They did take photos of stars, incidentally, most notably in the far ultraviolet with long exposures and a special camera on a tripod, allowing pictures in a wavelength absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, though they also took certain photos in lunar orbit using very sensitive film and longer than usual exposure.
This raises a question though, tarkus. The reason the stars are alleged to have been left out in Apollo photos according to conspiracy theorists is typically because they claim NASA could not do show stars in different locations convincingly. Ignoring the fact that planetariums do this all the time, the fact that certain Apollo photos do show stars raises the question of why, if they could do it in those photos, why not on the rest of Apollo imagery?
-
The interesting thing about that press conference was the body language of the atronautas, nervous and tense by the obligation they had to lie and invent.
In your opinion, which is pretty much worthless because you know nothing.
you see them relaxed perhaps?
Although one can not draw definitive conclusions from the words of Collins, is the Armstrong himself who says very clearly that the stars are not visible from space, he says in the interview textual happened to share "the Earth is the only visible objetct" (other than the sun).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o)
That is not what he said. He does not say that stars are not visible from space. You made that up. He says he couldn't see them from the lunar surface. Please tell us under what circumstances you think stars should be visible from the lunar surface.
No diference.
The reflected sunlight travels in straight lines. There is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight, so when an astronaut (or camera) looks up at the stars, how could the reflected light from the lunar surface get into his eyes?
(http://hugequestions.com/Eric/ScienceChallenge24Image.PNG)
JW Bush can see the stars without any problem.
If they had taken hundreds of pictures of Earth (like the ones they took from cislunar space and from lunar orbit) would you be happy, or would you by whining about them not taking enough photos of the moon?
None of the astronauts photographed the Earth from the moon, as if observing the Earth from the moon was something daily, disinterest for photographing the Earth remains to this day, so NASA falsified pictures of the Earth, as this where the clouds have been cloned:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2sb7p1d.jpg)
The strange behavior of astronauts, also showed greater interest in photographing the Earth from space, one assumes that it would take a picture to 50,000 km away, another 100,000 km, a halfway to the Moon (about 190,000 km ) with the Earth getting smaller, as the back, but no, there are only occasional image without more information accompanying.
You are, as usual, spectacularly inaccurate. They took photos regularly and lots of them. Why don't you know that? Why do you persist in posting such ignorant drivel?
His offensive language and bad humor are not a response to consider.
-
tarkus I linked a video that shows a much different aspect of the same news conference. Have a look.
-
you see them relaxed perhaps?
Yes, because I base my judgment on the entire conference, not a cherry-picked still.
The reflected sunlight travels in straight lines. There is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight, so when an astronaut (or camera) looks up at the stars, how could the reflected light from the lunar surface get into his eyes?
And how long will he need to keep looking up while his eyes adjust from the sunlit terrain? Do you know how eyes work?
JW Bush can see the stars without any problem.
Stealing illustrations from Hufschmid? When you pick your conspiracist mentors, you really scrape the bottom of the barrel.
None of the astronauts photographed the Earth from the moon...
Except, of course, for the ones you yourself posted. How many is enough? And why?
-
Oh, tarkus. ::)
If you came a quarter million miles, would you be spending all your time taking snapshots of the place you just came from, or would you be focusing most of your efforts on documenting this place you came all that way, trained all those years for? Sure, some photos were appropriate, and they took them, but the moon was the focus.
But it's not every day one can observe the Earth from so far away ... in fact, they left not a single camera pointing at Earth, and as of now, no camera filming Earth in any part, whereas the ISS orbits the Earth at close, it's like trying to appreciate the beauty of your wife seeing it at 2 cm away ...
They spent photos and video about playing golf, running stupidly or do anything silly on the moon, too many to get serious and solemnly affirm that they were adjusted on a mission ...
They did take photos of stars, incidentally, most notably in the far ultraviolet with long exposures and a special camera on a tripod, allowing pictures in a wavelength absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, though they also took certain photos in lunar orbit using very sensitive film and longer than usual exposure.
This raises a question though, tarkus. The reason the stars are alleged to have been left out in Apollo photos according to conspiracy theorists is typically because they claim NASA could not do show stars in different locations convincingly. Ignoring the fact that planetariums do this all the time, the fact that certain Apollo photos do show stars raises the question of why, if they could do it in those photos, why not on the rest of Apollo imagery?
I can accept that in most lunar pictures the stars are not visible, but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2afdhcz.jpg)
-
One: Why do you think those clouds are cloned? Do you know enough about weather systems to make that judgement?
Two: The Apollo astronauts wore cumbersome spacesuits and helmets. Looking up for the half an hour needed to dark-adjust their eyes was not an option. They were on a schedule. STARS ARE WEAK. The amount of light coming from a star is so weak compared to daylight, that if ANYTHING sunlit is in your viewfield, your eyes will adapt to that and not to the dark sky.
Let me show you this picture: https://500px.com/photo/118070979/stargazers-at-night-by-allan-folmersen?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=5551450
It was taken by me. It is unedited, a JPG straight from the camera. If you look into the details you'll see the EXIF data is ISO 6400, 30 seconds, and f:4. This picture is taken with the same camera, with the sun at about the same angle as it was on the Apollo landings: https://500px.com/photo/115251111/lena-j-red-dress-and-concrete-by-allan-folmersen?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=5551450.
If you look at the EXIF data for that, you'll notice that it is ISO 100, 1/640s and f2.8, right?
The difference in light level for these two pictures is: (30/(1/640) x 6400/100)/2 = 614400. That means there is 1:614400 difference in exposure level between the sunlit landscape and the stars. Your eyes can't bridge that gap. That means you can't be working hard one moment and the next look up and see stars. You need to let your eyes adapt to the lack of light. To increase their photoreceptive chemicals to a much higher level. Try it yourself. Go from a well-lit room and outside and look for stars. Can you do that?
Three: The astronauts being "tense" is first of all a product of them being astronauts, and not TV-whores like every celebrity today. They were working men and not peacocks. They did not enjoy the press attention. And if you see the ENTIRE press conference you'll see that there were moments of levity too.
-
Oh, tarkus. ::)
If you came a quarter million miles, would you be spending all your time taking snapshots of the place you just came from, or would you be focusing most of your efforts on documenting this place you came all that way, trained all those years for? Sure, some photos were appropriate, and they took them, but the moon was the focus.
But it's not every day one can observe the Earth from so far away ... in fact, they left not a single camera pointing at Earth, and as of now, no camera filming Earth in any part, whereas the ISS orbits the Earth at close, it's like trying to appreciate the beauty of your wife seeing it at 2 cm away ...
They spent photos and video about playing golf, running stupidly or do anything silly on the moon, too many to get serious and solemnly affirm that they were adjusted on a mission ...
They did take photos of stars, incidentally, most notably in the far ultraviolet with long exposures and a special camera on a tripod, allowing pictures in a wavelength absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, though they also took certain photos in lunar orbit using very sensitive film and longer than usual exposure.
This raises a question though, tarkus. The reason the stars are alleged to have been left out in Apollo photos according to conspiracy theorists is typically because they claim NASA could not do show stars in different locations convincingly. Ignoring the fact that planetariums do this all the time, the fact that certain Apollo photos do show stars raises the question of why, if they could do it in those photos, why not on the rest of Apollo imagery?
I can accept that in most lunar pictures the stars are not visible, but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2afdhcz.jpg)
What would be the benefit of having a camera pointing at Earth? What would you expect to see?
Photographing a sunlit object and expecting to see stars with the same exposure? Not going to happen.
-
But it's not every day one can observe the Earth from so far away
Actually it is. We've been observing the Earth continually since before Apollo, using automated spacecraft stationed at an appropriate distance. Conversely it's not every day you walk on the Moon.
in fact, they left not a single camera pointing at Earth...
That would have required ongoing infrastructure to receive the pictures. You're making up things you think NASA should have done, just so you can berate them for not having done it. Do you have any workable concept of reality?
...and as of now, no camera filming Earth in any part
Except, of course, for the flotilla of weather satellites that have been there since before Apollo. There is no scientific or operational advantage to continuous observation of the Earth from lunar distance.
but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see.
Except for the same facts about photograph exposure, of which you remain stubbornly ignorant.
-
I can accept that in most lunar pictures the stars are not visible, but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2afdhcz.jpg)
Aside from obviously having far too short an exposure to show stars you mean. The sunlit earth being properly exposed shows that it was using a fast exposure, taking pictures of stars requires a long exposure, far longer than can be done with a hand held camera, particularly with the relatively slow film that the Apollo Hasselbads used. The lack of atmosphere only makes the starts about twice as bright, which would still need an exposure time of tens of seconds, far beyond the ~1/10th second longest practical exposure with a hand held camera.
-
None of the astronauts photographed the Earth from the moon, as if observing the Earth from the moon was something daily, disinterest for photographing the Earth remains to this day, so NASA falsified pictures of the Earth, as this where the clouds have been cloned:
If you'd bothered to read the information about that photograph you posted properly instead of swallowing what some conspiracy website told you (do you think people here don't read other websites?), you would know that it is a composite image.
I'll leave you a minute while you get the dictionary definition of that word.
The reason some of those clouds are repeated is because of the way several images were compiled to make it.
Astronauts did take pictures of Earth from the lunar surface, and in cislunar space, and in lunar orbit. The cloud patterns in those images bear a unique temporal fingerprint that match exactly weather features recorded by meteorological satellites. Those satellite images, like the photographs. 16mm and live TV of Earth, were publicly available long before Photoshop could have done any cloning on them.
Feel free to prove that wrong.
That photo of Earth you posted? Also broadcast to Earth on live TV before the satellite images were actually taken. How did that happen?
As for there not being a single star in that photo of Earth you posted, here's a little thing you could do to actually prove us all wrong.
Get a camera, go outside on a moonlit night when there are stars aplenty, take a picture of the moon and show us the stars in it.
Don't come back until you've done that.
-
you see them relaxed perhaps?
Yes, because I base my judgment on the entire conference, not a cherry-picked still.
When asked by the stars lost their cool, I do not expect you to admit it of course.
The reflected sunlight travels in straight lines. There is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight, so when an astronaut (or camera) looks up at the stars, how could the reflected light from the lunar surface get into his eyes?
And how long will he need to keep looking up while his eyes adjust from the sunlit terrain? Do you know how eyes work?
With a real Sol you would be right, but the artificial light that planets like Earth false used as shown in the following two images:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/xbe5tx.gif)
JW Bush can see the stars without any problem.
Stealing illustrations from Hufschmid? When you pick your conspiracist mentors, you really scrape the bottom of the barrel.
Much worse it is to steal from NASA.
-
When asked by the stars lost their cool, I do not expect you to admit it of course.
You're right. I don't agree with your interpretation.
With a real Sol you would be right, but the artificial light that planets like Earth false used as shown in the following two images
First you didn't answer my question. Second, do you honestly think those are properly rectified photos?
Much worse it is to steal from NASA.
You missed the point. You're getting your arguments and the illustrations to support them from one of the most incompetent conspiracy theorists out there. I debated Hufschmidt myself. He ran away after about three posts. And this is the guy you're trusting to "educate" you.
-
If you'd bothered to read the information about that photograph you posted properly instead of swallowing what some conspiracy website told you (do you think people here don't read other websites?), you would know that it is a composite image.
I'll leave you a minute while you get the dictionary definition of that word.
The reason some of those clouds are repeated is because of the way several images were compiled to make it.
Astronauts did take pictures of Earth from the lunar surface, and in cislunar space, and in lunar orbit. The cloud patterns in those images bear a unique temporal fingerprint that match exactly weather features recorded by meteorological satellites. Those satellite images, like the photographs. 16mm and live TV of Earth, were publicly available long before Photoshop could have done any cloning on them.
Feel free to prove that wrong.
That photo of Earth you posted? Also broadcast to Earth on live TV before the satellite images were actually taken. How did that happen?
As for there not being a single star in that photo of Earth you posted, here's a little thing you could do to actually prove us all wrong.
NASA can not place a satellite in orbit at a distance sufficient to photograph the Earth, but we want to convince that traveled to the moon ... photocompositions, why? no technical reasons that prevent us from film and broadcast video signal in real time to our planet from space, 50,000 km away enough to appreciate the full scope but do not, because they can not. Even today we have images of the poles, but NASA assures us that the ice are retreating, do you believe them?
Get a camera, go outside on a moonlit night when there are stars aplenty, take a picture of the moon and show us the stars in it.
Don't come back until you've done that.
You forget the dispersion caused by the atmospheric air, this phenomenon does not exist on the moon.
-
NASA can not place a satellite in orbit at a distance sufficient to photograph the Earth...
How do you think weather satellites have worked for the past 50 years?
no technical reasons that prevent us from film and broadcast video signal in real time to our planet from space...
Except for the technical and practical reasons you have been told, but which you have assiduously ignored.
...but NASA assures us that the ice are retreating, do you believe them?
One conspiracy theory at a time, please.
You forget the dispersion caused by the atmospheric air, this phenomenon does not exist on the moon.
You were told the attenuation factor. Now you're being asked to test photographic exposure. Do it, and report back please.
-
NASA can not place a satellite in orbit at a distance sufficient to photograph the Earth,
Who says? You? NASA can't, some maybe others can?
Geostationary meteorological satellites have been around since the 1960s.
but we want to convince that traveled to the moon ...
I don't have to. You need to convince me they didn't. So far you are failing dismally.
photocompositions, why?
Go read up about the photo.
no technical reasons that prevent us from film and broadcast video signal in real time to our planet from space,
But you said NASA can't do that. Which is it?
50,000 km away enough to appreciate the full scope but do not, because they can not. Even today we have images of the poles, but NASA assures us that the ice are retreating, do you believe them?
You seem to be of the opinion that NASA are the only people doing climate research. I suggest you broaden your horizons.
You forget the dispersion caused by the atmospheric air, this phenomenon does not exist on the moon.
Why won't you try it? Are you scared?
-
Tarkus, why will you not answer my two very simple questions about the service module and the size of the Earth when viewed from 800,000 km?
-
And shall we be a bit more honest with our superimposition of two Apollo images.
Here's how they actually line up, based on markings on the South Massif in the background.
(http://i61.tinypic.com/e12plv.jpg)
Note how despite the second photograph being taken from closer to the astronaut and from a different angle, the massif features are unchanged, indicating that it is some distance away.
-
And at 11:29 in this video, you can see the contortions Gene has to do to make sure Earth is in shot.
There's a nice higher res version around that doesn't show all of the photography sequence, but does show very nicely one of the boulder trails on the north massif.
-
Oh, tarkus. ::)
If you came a quarter million miles, would you be spending all your time taking snapshots of the place you just came from, or would you be focusing most of your efforts on documenting this place you came all that way, trained all those years for? Sure, some photos were appropriate, and they took them, but the moon was the focus.
But it's not every day one can observe the Earth from so far away ... in fact, they left not a single camera pointing at Earth, and as of now, no camera filming Earth in any part, whereas the ISS orbits the Earth at close, it's like trying to appreciate the beauty of your wife seeing it at 2 cm away ...
They spent photos and video about playing golf, running stupidly or do anything silly on the moon, too many to get serious and solemnly affirm that they were adjusted on a mission ...
I'm not even sure what you are asking. You want NASA to have sent, on a mission to the moon, the moon mind, with extremely tight mass tolerances, a camera to return video of the Earth in perpetuity, surviving indefinite day night cycles? Why?
They did take photos of stars, incidentally, most notably in the far ultraviolet with long exposures and a special camera on a tripod, allowing pictures in a wavelength absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, though they also took certain photos in lunar orbit using very sensitive film and longer than usual exposure.
This raises a question though, tarkus. The reason the stars are alleged to have been left out in Apollo photos according to conspiracy theorists is typically because they claim NASA could not do show stars in different locations convincingly. Ignoring the fact that planetariums do this all the time, the fact that certain Apollo photos do show stars raises the question of why, if they could do it in those photos, why not on the rest of Apollo imagery?
I can accept that in most lunar pictures the stars are not visible, but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2afdhcz.jpg)
What is the exposure time and camera settings on that photo? Given that the Earth is properly exposed, I have strong doubts, even as not even a layman in photography, it would be enough to show stars. Still, I ask again, if NASA could add stars to other pictures, why not that, if there should be, as you claim? As you said, there is no excuse.
-
The interesting thing about that press conference was the body language
Cobblers of the highest order. Weapons grade cobblers. Great big immense cobblers. Cobblers is a term that means rubbish basically. Whenever the wibblers bring this up in the usual conspiracy places I see it a glaring admission that they are clueless, without an idea. It is scary that this idea is adhered to. It really is.
I have seen people that are great in front of people, that is face to face and small groups, stick a camera on them and they go to pieces. I have seen reporters get it all wrong on occasion and that is their day job, speaking to the masses through a camera. I can type all this now knowing what I want to say but I would turn to jelly if there was a live camera on me and probably say "Thursday" and that is it.
This is the bit that gets me with this stance, about "body language". I am no expert and I can see there are differences and different people react in different ways. Then some person says "does not look right" scratches chin and adds "hmmmm" somewhere, that makes them an instant expert and the world must believe them. The back slapper union supporting this stance all chip in with "well spotted" and "its obvious" when they have no chuffin clue what they are on about.
To me, based on what I have seen and know, they look like people doing what people do, in real life, based on what I have observed, in real life.
Wibble on dude.
-
The reflected sunlight travels in straight lines. There is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight, so when an astronaut (or camera) looks up at the stars, how could the reflected light from the lunar surface get into his eyes?
The list of things that you are evidencing that you know absolutely nothing about is growing. We can now add human eye sensitivity and dark-adaption to the list.
JW Bush can see the stars without any problem.
Of all the drivel that you have posted so far (and there has been a LOT), this piece almost caps it all. if you cannot work out why this claim is ridiculous then there isn't much hope for you being capable of learning anything.
I can accept that in most lunar pictures the stars are not visible
So now you are contradicting yourself? ::)
but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see:
Really? how exactly did you come to this conclusion? Do you know what ISO speed, aperture and exposure times were used when taking this image? Do you know the equivalent times needed to register star images? No, you don't. Again, we have someone that has almost certainly never pointed a camera at the night sky making all sorts of stupid claims in an area where he has zero knowledge, ability or experience.
Seeing as you have rediscovered that you can post in English Tarkus, I am still waiting for your response to these questions (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=988.msg33948#msg33948):
-
This is the bit that gets me with this stance, about "body language". I am no expert and I can see there are differences and different people react in different ways. Then some person says "does not look right" scratches chin and adds "hmmmm" somewhere, that makes them an instant expert and the world must believe them. The back slapper union supporting this stance all chip in with "well spotted" and "its obvious" when they have no chuffin clue what they are on about.
Well put. This attitude reminds me of the armchair Sherlocks who crawl out of the woodwork to accuse grieving relatives of murder on the basis that they 'are not crying enough' at a police press conference or get caught momentarily smiling in a paparazzi photo. Dangerous, wrong, and a complete misunderstanding of human psychology. It makes you wonder how much time these people have spent with other human beings.
-
Oh, tarkus. ::)
If you came a quarter million miles, would you be spending all your time taking snapshots of the place you just came from, or would you be focusing most of your efforts on documenting this place you came all that way, trained all those years for? Sure, some photos were appropriate, and they took them, but the moon was the focus.
But it's not every day one can observe the Earth from so far away ... in fact, they left not a single camera pointing at Earth, and as of now
Lets examine this comment. Firstly a TV camera would have required power? where is the power? Not from the LM or LRV as both were battery powered, and that power would deplete fairly rapidly. A Camera? no one to develop the film nor send it back to the earth this is a ridiculous statement., no camera filming Earth in any part, whereas the ISS orbits the Earth at close, it's like trying to appreciate the beauty of your wife seeing it at 2 cm away ...
They spent photos and video about playing golf, running stupidly or do anything silly on the moon, too many to get serious and solemnly affirm that they were adjusted on a mission
They did take photos of stars, incidentally, most notably in the far ultraviolet with long exposures and a special camera on a tripod, allowing pictures in a wavelength absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, though they also took certain photos in lunar orbit using very sensitive film and longer than usual exposure.
This raises a question though, tarkus. The reason the stars are alleged to have been left out in Apollo photos according to conspiracy theorists is typically because they claim NASA could not do show stars in different locations convincingly. Ignoring the fact that planetariums do this all the time, the fact that certain Apollo photos do show stars raises the question of why, if they could do it in those photos, why not on the rest of Apollo imagery?
I can accept that in most lunar pictures the stars are not visible, but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2afdhcz.jpg)
-
Many satellites with imaging capability orbit above the earth and take numerous images on a daily basis.
EDIT: spelling
-
One of the LRV TV cameras left behind after the astronauts departed took numerous pans of the lunar landscape, AND THE EARTH, until it ran out of power.
-
I can only apologise that a question I thought valid regarding the astronauts giving a personal recollection of their time on the moon and what they actually saw, and what I thought Collins was joking about i.e. not being on the moon, whereas the others were, has now, it appears been hijacked by a ..well what can I say.
-
I can only apologise...
No need. You raised a valid question. You're not responsible for what others do or say.
-
Well, there's a big difference, tarkus, between Bush and an actual Apollo Astronaut. One, the latter is wearing a helmet, t, and if he looked up like that, all he'd see would be the top of his helmet. Even standing straight up wasn't easy, as the limitations of freedom of movement, not to mention the PLSS backpack that massed half as much as the astronaut did, gave the astronauts a hunched over posture by default. Between the field of view problems and the range of motion problems, an astronaut would have to crane way back, in a shadow so as to minimise surface reflections, and then wait, wait mind, for his eyes to dark adapt. I'll have to find it, but it *was* done apparently on at least one of the later missions, but it would take time, time they really did not have on Apollo 11 especially.
-
Tarkus has copied and pasted from a source that thinks that light only ever goes back from whence it came, and can't imagine it being scattered in other directions if there is no air to do it.
Specifically: http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Science_Challenge_24.html
-
Tarkus has copied and pasted from a source that thinks that light only ever goes back from whence it came, and can't imagine it being scattered in other directions if there is no air to do it.
Specifically: http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Science_Challenge_24.html
I saw that and laughed. The flat terrain http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Science_Challenge_25.html
-
Tarkus has copied and pasted from a source that thinks that light only ever goes back from whence it came, and can't imagine it being scattered in other directions if there is no air to do it.
Specifically: http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Science_Challenge_24.html
I went and checked the main page.
Then I went and washed my eyes out with bleach.
Anti-Semitism AND woo. What a combination.
-
Tarkus has copied and pasted from a source that thinks that light only ever goes back from whence it came, and can't imagine it being scattered in other directions if there is no air to do it.
Specifically: http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Science_Challenge_24.html
I went and checked the main page.
Then I went and washed my eyes out with bleach.
Anti-Semitism AND woo. What a combination.
I'll bet that hurt.
-
Yeah, Hufschmid is quite a piece of work. I think he lasted a grand total of 3-4 posts at Bad Astronomy.
-
I ran across a crow777 today with his drivel about the size/distance of the moon is wrong, why do they believe that thy are smarter than the collective group of scientists/engineers?
-
Lets examine this comment. Firstly a TV camera would have required power? where is the power? Not from the LM or LRV as both were battery powered, and that power would deplete fairly rapidly. A Camera? no one to develop the film nor send it back to the earth this is a ridiculous statement.Feeding a TV camera could be achieved with solar panels ... like these Surveyor III:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/122hzqb.png)
It is assumed that this toy TV broadcast from the moon powered by these panels ... or am I wrong?
By the way astronauts practiced the meeting with the Surveyor with a model with fancy panels as the image ...
(http://i62.tinypic.com/16ifry1.jpg)
OOOPSSS ... the model used instead of the original in the "Moon", just an oversight more.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2ry215v.jpg)
-
Send it back to Earth and be received by what, Tarkus? We've explained at length what it takes to receive a live television signal from space.
-
OOOPSSS ... the model used instead of the original in the "Moon",
Are you seriously claiming that the mockup should somehow look different than the real thing? I'm sorry, but at this point you're just an idiot. Seriously an idiot.
-
Really? how exactly did you come to this conclusion? Do you know what ISO speed, aperture and exposure times were used when taking this image? Do you know the equivalent times needed to register star images? No, you don't. Again, we have someone that has almost certainly never pointed a camera at the night sky making all sorts of stupid claims in an area where he has zero knowledge, ability or experience.
Stupid are those who believe in the seriousness of images like this:
(http://s16.postimg.org/ku4iiye39/CARONTE.jpg)
... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon, but Charon is here too bright ... if you get Charon explain why it looks so bright , then I'd like to explain why stars are not even in this case !!!
-
... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon, but Charon is here too bright ... if you get Charon explain why it looks so bright , then I'd like to explain why stars are not even in this case !!!
For the last time, learn something about photographic exposure. You're either a troll or an idiot. There is no third option.
-
Do your homework, Tarkus. Only one of those panels is a solar panel. The other is an antenna used to communicate with earth.
Yes, the Surveyors carried "TV cameras" but only in the sense that they used some of the same technology as the TV broadcasting cameras of the day, namely an image vidicon tube feeding a radio transmitter.
But that's where the similarity ends. Surveyor's vidicon could only take still pictures at a maximum rate of one frame every 3.6 seconds. (US TV broadcasting was 30 frames/sec.) It even had a shutter like one on a still camera with film.
Why? Two reasons. First, the limited power and radio link capacity could not support regular moving-picture television. Second, it was totally unnecessary. The moon is a dead world. Nothing moves, at least not very often. Still imagery gave the scientists on the ground everything they wanted.
The same vidicon technology, though somewhat improved, was flown on the Voyager 1 & 2 missions to Jupiter, Saturn and beyond. Once again, the radio links were severely limited in capacity (despite the very large dishes used to receive it) and there was no need for motion. The scientists were much more interested in high resolution still images. That was done by taking "mosaics", a series of lower resolution pictures that were stitched together on the ground into bigger, higher resolution images.
Subsequent interplanetary spacecraft, such as Galileo and Cassini, used solid state CCD imagers but they still take only still images for the same reasons stated above. Unless people or animals are in the shot, there's very little point to conventional TV from a spacecraft.
-
OOOPSSS ... the model used instead of the original in the "Moon",
Are you seriously claiming that the mockup should somehow look different than the real thing? I'm sorry, but at this point you're just an idiot. Seriously an idiot.
Panels do not match, and insults demonstrate their incompetence ... troll.
-
Panels do not match
Not expected to, for the reasons given. Facts easily found.
and insults demonstrate their incompetence ... troll.
No, we've suffered your colossal ignorance quite enough. Seriously, read a book or something. If you're serious about any of these claims, you are literally the stupidest person to grace this board in quite some time. It's not an insult. It's a statement of fact.
-
... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon, but Charon is here too bright ... if you get Charon explain why it looks so bright , then I'd like to explain why stars are not even in this case !!!
For the last time, learn something about photographic exposure. You're either a troll or an idiot. There is no third option.
Clearly you lose patience and you exhaust the arguments sent to study in other is not an argument, answer why NASA keeps showing black backgrounds as black theater in Prague ... XXI century.
-
... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon
Actually no, science doesn't say that. The rest of your claim therefore falls apart.
-
Panels do not match, and insults demonstrate their incompetence ... troll.
I just explained why they don't match. One is a solar panel and the other is an antenna.
Your inability to read demonstrates your incompetence.
Oh, in case you really want to take on an advanced challenge, determine which panel is the antenna. Hint: it would be pointed at the same earth as the deployable S-band dish antenna in the distance next to the Apollo 12 LM. NASA sure paid attention to such details, didn't they?
-
Clearly you lose patience and you exhaust the arguments...
No, you've been given the arguments. This is at least the third time I've told you about photographic exposure -- a topic you are clearly ignorant of and have no intention whatsoever of learning. You get a few tries to learn it. Then after that you're either a troll or an idiot.
-
Do your homework, Tarkus. Only one of those panels is a solar panel. The other is an antenna used to communicate with earth.
Yes, the Surveyors carried "TV cameras" but only in the sense that they used some of the same technology as the TV broadcasting cameras of the day, namely an image vidicon tube feeding a radio transmitter.
But that's where the similarity ends. Surveyor's vidicon could only take still pictures at a maximum rate of one frame every 3.6 seconds. (US TV broadcasting was 30 frames/sec.) It even had a shutter like one on a still camera with film.
Why? Two reasons. First, the limited power and radio link capacity could not support regular moving-picture television. Second, it was totally unnecessary. The moon is a dead world. Nothing moves, at least not very often. Still imagery gave the scientists on the ground everything they wanted.
The same vidicon technology, though somewhat improved, was flown on the Voyager 1 & 2 missions to Jupiter, Saturn and beyond. Once again, the radio links were severely limited in capacity (despite the very large dishes used to receive it) and there was no need for motion. The scientists were much more interested in high resolution still images. That was done by taking "mosaics", a series of lower resolution pictures that were stitched together on the ground into bigger, higher resolution images.
Subsequent interplanetary spacecraft, such as Galileo and Cassini, used solid state CCD imagers but they still take only still images for the same reasons stated above. Unless people or animals are in the shot, there's very little point to conventional TV from a spacecraft.
Two things: the first is that although the Surveyor was not able to transmit continuous video, was able to continue broadcasting for a long time thanks to the solar panel, if I'm wrong you explain why. And the second is that since much improved video technology today, there is no reason not to have electronic eyes on the moon for everybody transmitting real-time TV technically or economically.
Moon is an excellent observatory on Earth, his face forever pointing to Earth, it would give us the chance to see our world as a complete sphere and in real time, something that we have not yet.
-
Lets examine this comment. Firstly a TV camera would have required power? where is the power? Not from the LM or LRV as both were battery powered, and that power would deplete fairly rapidly. A Camera? no one to develop the film nor send it back to the earth this is a ridiculous statement.Feeding a TV camera could be achieved with solar panels ... like these Surveyor III:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/122hzqb.png)
It is assumed that this toy TV broadcast from the moon powered by these panels ... or am I wrong?
then riddle me this bat man, why did the lander quit sending pictures after one lunar night? Care for another guess?
By the way astronauts practiced the meeting with the Surveyor with a model with fancy panels as the image ...
(http://i62.tinypic.com/16ifry1.jpg)
OOOPSSS ... the model used instead of the original in the "Moon", just an oversight more.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2ry215v.jpg)
-
One of the LRV TV cameras left behind after the astronauts departed took numerous pans of the lunar landscape, AND THE EARTH, until it ran out of power.
LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!
-
Two things: the first is that although the Surveyor was not able to transmit continuous video, was able to continue broadcasting for a long time thanks to the solar panel, if I'm wrong you explain why.
You're wrong because you shifted the goalposts. We have given you several examples of spacecraft throughout history that have sent still pictures via television-type technology and its various successors.
And the second is that since much improved video technology today, there is no reason not to have electronic eyes on the moon for everybody transmitting real-time TV technically or economically.
No. As I said, you're just inventing things you think should exist and trying to say people are dishonest for not implementing them for you. That is not an argument.
Moon is an excellent observatory on Earth, his face forever pointing to Earth, it would give us the chance to see our world as a complete sphere and in real time, something that we have not yet.
Asked and answered. We have Earth observation satellites in geostationary orbit that do a much better job of observing Earth than any station on the Moon would be. This has been explained several times to you. Your continued ignorance of it does not constitute an argument.
-
LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!
Then go look it up.
-
Do your homework, Tarkus. Only one of those panels is a solar panel. The other is an antenna used to communicate with earth.
Yes, the Surveyors carried "TV cameras" but only in the sense that they used some of the same technology as the TV broadcasting cameras of the day, namely an image vidicon tube feeding a radio transmitter.
But that's where the similarity ends. Surveyor's vidicon could only take still pictures at a maximum rate of one frame every 3.6 seconds. (US TV broadcasting was 30 frames/sec.) It even had a shutter like one on a still camera with film.
Why? Two reasons. First, the limited power and radio link capacity could not support regular moving-picture television. Second, it was totally unnecessary. The moon is a dead world. Nothing moves, at least not very often. Still imagery gave the scientists on the ground everything they wanted.
The same vidicon technology, though somewhat improved, was flown on the Voyager 1 & 2 missions to Jupiter, Saturn and beyond. Once again, the radio links were severely limited in capacity (despite the very large dishes used to receive it) and there was no need for motion. The scientists were much more interested in high resolution still images. That was done by taking "mosaics", a series of lower resolution pictures that were stitched together on the ground into bigger, higher resolution images.
Subsequent interplanetary spacecraft, such as Galileo and Cassini, used solid state CCD imagers but they still take only still images for the same reasons stated above. Unless people or animals are in the shot, there's very little point to conventional TV from a spacecraft.
Two things: the first is that although the Surveyor was not able to transmit continuous video, was able to continue broadcasting for a long time thanks to the solar panel, if I'm wrong you explain why. And the second is that since much improved video technology today, there is no reason not to have electronic eyes on the moon for everybody transmitting real-time TV technically or economically.
Moon is an excellent observatory on Earth, his face forever pointing to Earth, it would give us the chance to see our world as a complete sphere and in real time, something that we have not yet.
As indicated before any continuous transmission needs an infrastructure and a budget, neither of which would be forthcoming in this political environment.
-
... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon
Actually no, science doesn't say that. The rest of your claim therefore falls apart.
And what does it say then? link please ...
-
... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon
Actually no, science doesn't say that. The rest of your claim therefore falls apart.
And what does it say then? link please ...
You made the claim. You document it.
-
LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!
Then go look it up.
Who claims shows meantime I refuse to believe that.
-
LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!
Then go look it up.
Who claims shows meantime I refuse to believe that.
You imply that you are aware of the historical record of television use in space. Your ignorance of significant portions of it are your problem. Further, your critics have given you several examples of historical facts that contract your beliefs in many areas. You are uninterested. Hence your disbelief on this or any other point is only a product of your willful ignorance.
-
As indicated before any continuous transmission needs an infrastructure and a budget, neither of which would be forthcoming in this political environment.
Infrastructure? install a TV camera on the moon requires infrastructure away from the space agencies? then turn off everything and let's go.
-
As indicated before any continuous transmission needs an infrastructure and a budget, neither of which would be forthcoming in this political environment.
Infrastructure? install a TV camera on the moon requires infrastructure away from the space agencies? then turn off everything and let's go.
It requires an infrastructure to receive the signal. For Apollo this was not the space agency's infrastructure; it was rented from private sources. This was described to you at length. Your ongoing ignorance of it is not an argument.
-
... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon
Actually no, science doesn't say that. The rest of your claim therefore falls apart.
And what does it say then? link please ...
As you seem to be incapable of working a search engine on your own Let Me Google That For You: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sunlight+on+pluto
-
LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!
Then go look it up.
Who claims shows meantime I refuse to believe that.
I'm not going to waste my time providing a link so that you can ignore it, deny it, or move the goalposts.
I long for a hoax believer to debate with some intellectual honesty.
-
I long for a hoax believer to debate with some intellectual honesty.
Honesty would be nice, as well as even a rudimentary understanding of the relevant principles.
-
... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon, but Charon is here too bright ... if you get Charon explain why it looks so bright , then I'd like to explain why stars are not even in this case !!!
Your ignorance of the most basic elements of photography is plain to see. Instead of thrashing about in areas where you are totally incompetent, why not take a little time to learn something???
-
Two things: the first is that although the Surveyor was not able to transmit continuous video, was able to continue broadcasting for a long time thanks to the solar panel, if I'm wrong you explain why.
Hint #1: Solar panels work only when illuminated.
Hint #2: The Moon is tidally locked to the earth; it rotates only once per month.
Hint #3: Without an atmosphere to hold heat, the Moon gets really cold at night.
Hint #4: Extreme cold is often fatal to electronics unless carefully designed and insulated. A source of heat is usually required if not powered.
And the second is that since much improved video technology today, there is no reason not to have electronic eyes on the moon for everybody transmitting real-time TV technically or economically.
Moon is an excellent observatory on Earth, his face forever pointing to Earth, it would give us the chance to see our world as a complete sphere and in real time, something that we have not yet.
See hints 1-4 above.
There are much better places from which to continually observe the earth. One is geostationary orbit, where (unlike the Moon) there is continuous sunlight except for a little more than an hour per day around the equinoxes. This is only about 10% of the distance to the moon, allowing much smaller optics. It is also much easier to reach than the surface of the moon.
Another is the earth-sun L1 point about 1.5 million km from the earth toward the sun. Although much farther away than the moon, and used mainly for observing the sun (rather than the earth) a recently launched spacecraft called DISCOVR does indeed continually observe the earth. One difference with geostationary observation is that DISCOVR continually sees a fully sunlit earth. But the earth is ringed with a series of geostationary weather satellites that keep all sides under continuous observation, with infrared cameras watching the night side.
The earth is also continually observed by a large fleet of spacecraft in low earth orbit, from the ISS in a medium inclination orbit to multi-national fleets of low polar orbit weather, spy and earth resources satellites. Because they're so much closer, these orbits are greatly preferred for high resolution images. However, they cannot continually "stare" at one point on the surface as a geostationary satellite can. That's why we have both types.
-
Moon is an excellent observatory on Earth
Why is it?
How do you propose that the power requirements of such an observatory is managed?
What would it offer that a geo-synch satellite (for example) wouldn't?
How do you propose that it would be maintained, especially now that we know that the lunar dust causes many problems?
In reality, what you are doing is proposing a strawman argument, one which is based on nothing more than fanciful supposition.1
his face forever pointing to Earth
It's probably the language difference, but in English the Moon is normally referred to as feminine.
it would give us the chance to see our world as a complete sphere and in real time, something that we have not yet.
Rubbish
-
... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon
Actually no, science doesn't say that. The rest of your claim therefore falls apart.
And what does it say then? link please ...
Magnitude of sun from earth: -26.74
Magnitude of sun at Pluto from 40 AU: -18.7
Magnitude of full moon at earth: -12.74
A difference of 5 magnitudes corresponds to a brightness ratio of 100:1, or 4 decibels/magnitude. Nope, not even close.
-
(http://i61.tinypic.com/122hzqb.png)
It is assumed that this toy TV broadcast from the moon powered by these panels ... or am I wrong?
By the way astronauts practiced the meeting with the Surveyor with a model with fancy panels as the image ...
(http://i62.tinypic.com/16ifry1.jpg)
OOOPSSS ... the model used instead of the original in the "Moon", just an oversight more.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2ry215v.jpg)
Are you claiming that the panels on Surveyor in the third picture look more like the mock-up in picture 2 than the actual spacecraft in picture 1?
Well, consider these factors:
1. Different lighting in the three photos. Photo 3 was taken in full sunlight, while the other two were taken inside.
2. Surveyor on the Moon was sprayed with dust blasted out by the rocket exhaust of the LM as it landed. It's not surprising that the panels looked lighter.
3. What information do you have about exposure times and f-stops for the three photos?
Once you've dealt with these three issues, then you can complain about how Surveyor 3 looked in photo 3.
-
Stupid are those who believe in the seriousness of images like this:
(http://s16.postimg.org/ku4iiye39/CARONTE.jpg)
... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon, but Charon is here too bright ... if you get Charon explain why it looks so bright , then I'd like to explain why stars are not even in this case !!!
Do you understand what the term "exposure time" means? If so, do you know how much time would be needed to make stars appear in that image?
-
...since much improved video technology today, there is no reason not to have electronic eyes on the moon for everybody transmitting real-time TV technically or economically.
Moon is an excellent observatory on Earth, his face forever pointing to Earth, it would give us the chance to see our world as a complete sphere and in real time, something that we have not yet.
The Moon is ~380,000 kilometres from the Earth. Geostationary orbit is ~36,000 kilometres from the Earth. Which is going to give a better image of the Earth?
Have you seen images of the Earth taken from meteorology satellites? If so, is there anything wrong with them?
-
As indicated before any continuous transmission needs an infrastructure and a budget, neither of which would be forthcoming in this political environment.
Infrastructure? install a TV camera on the moon requires infrastructure away from the space agencies? then turn off everything and let's go.
Are you this stupid or just play acing like a troll. why do the Chinese, Russians and NASA have large numbers of people running these missions?. Secondly the infrastructure I mentioned is to receive transform, store and present the images produced. Many experiments that Apollo brought to the moon were still working when budgetary restraints shut them down
-
(http://i61.tinypic.com/122hzqb.png)
It is assumed that this toy TV broadcast from the moon powered by these panels ... or am I wrong?
By the way astronauts practiced the meeting with the Surveyor with a model with fancy panels as the image ...
(http://i62.tinypic.com/16ifry1.jpg)
OOOPSSS ... the model used instead of the original in the "Moon", just an oversight more.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2ry215v.jpg)
Are you claiming that the panels on Surveyor in the third picture look more like the mock-up in picture 2 than the actual spacecraft in picture 1?
Well, consider these factors:
1. Different lighting in the three photos. Photo 3 was taken in full sunlight, while the other two were taken inside.
2. Surveyor on the Moon was sprayed with dust blasted out by the rocket exhaust of the LM as it landed. It's not surprising that the panels looked lighter.
3. What information do you have about exposure times and f-stops for the three photos?
Once you've dealt with these three issues, then you can complain about how Surveyor 3 looked in photo 3.
There are more reasons, both panels show the same orientation on the moon than the picture of practice, is it only coincidence? with solar panel giving back to the sun ... just enough to look where the shadows point, this is not serious ...
(http://www.astroyciencia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/partes-sonda-surveyor.jpg)
-
There are more reasons...
Evasion. You were asked to explain the factors identified in the post you quoted. Please do so before moving on to new issues.
-
What is your point, Tarkus? I am able to locate several photographs of the astronauts training with a mockup Surveyor, showing the mast assembly from various lines of sight. Similarly I am able to locate several Apollo 12 photographs again from different points of view showing the mast assembly in various orientations due to different lines of sight. You have selected two photographs that show the mast (but, ironically, not the spacecraft chassis itself) in similar orientations and, from what I discern from your incoherent babbling, trying to argue that the same object was used to stage fake landing photos that was used in training.
Neither logic nor the available data support this contention.
-
tarkus
Look at these groups of images one taken by the surveyor and one taken by A12 crew.
notice the field of rocks in both looks like an exact match to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3#/media/File:Surveyor_3_Fig_7-41b2.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7091HR.jpg
-
...
Hey tarkus, how about answering the simple question I've been asking you for ages. People have been answering yours repeatedly, so how about extending the same courtesy?
To repeat: How big would the Earth appear from 800,000km given that it is 2 degrees wide when viewed from 400,000km?
-
What is your point, Tarkus? I am able to locate several photographs of the astronauts training with a mockup Surveyor, showing the mast assembly from various lines of sight. Similarly I am able to locate several Apollo 12 photographs again from different points of view showing the mast assembly in various orientations due to different lines of sight. You have selected two photographs that show the mast (but, ironically, not the spacecraft chassis itself) in similar orientations and, from what I discern from your incoherent babbling, trying to argue that the same object was used to stage fake landing photos that was used in training.
Neither logic nor the available data support this contention.
his revelations sounds much like hunchbacked referring to his anomalies he "perceived"
-
...
Hey tarkus, how about answering the simple question I've been asking you for ages. People have been answering yours repeatedly, so how about extending the same courtesy?
To repeat: How big would the Earth appear from 800,000km given that it is 2 degrees wide when viewed from 400,000km?
I doubt he knows how to calculate it, let alone visualize it.
-
Tarkus, does it not occur to you that the Sun moves across the Lunar sky? I believe that the solar panel "chased" the Sun into the Lunar afternoon and stopped there. Surveyor III could not be "awakened" after the 14 day cold-soak it received during the Lunar night, so the Solar panel remained where it was when the lander shut down.
Actually, I'm impressed that the mission planners appeared to have taken that into account in setting up the training scenarios.
-
...
Hey tarkus, how about answering the simple question I've been asking you for ages. People have been answering yours repeatedly, so how about extending the same courtesy?
To repeat: How big would the Earth appear from 800,000km given that it is 2 degrees wide when viewed from 400,000km?
I doubt he knows how to calculate it, let alone visualize it.
This is an oddly common factor with HBs. I find it difficult to understand why it might be that all HBs are spatially unaware. It can't be a failure of education, since all of them must clearly operate in a 3D world in their daily lives, so what is it?
-
We move about the 3D world by instinct, mostly unconscious. Reasoning about the 3D world consciously requires a set of cognitive skills that not all persons have developed sufficiently.
-
I doubt he knows how to calculate it, let alone visualize it.
That's fine. "I don't know," is a perfectly acceptable answer (although looking up the method of calculating it is not hard). It's the evasion of the question I am calling him out on.
I can even reframe it: how big will an object that appears to be x degrees across at distance ykm appear to be from a distance 2ykm?
-
We move about the 3D world by instinct, mostly unconscious. Reasoning about the 3D world consciously requires a set of cognitive skills that not all persons have developed sufficiently.
Fair point.
-
I doubt he knows how to calculate it, let alone visualize it.
That's fine. "I don't know," is a perfectly acceptable answer (although looking up the method of calculating it is not hard). It's the evasion of the question I am calling him out on.
I can even reframe it: how big will an object that appears to be x degrees across at distance ykm appear to be from a distance 2ykm?
Correct, but if he answered correctly he position is devastated, so I'm guessing he ducks and runs.
-
Correct, but if he answered correctly he position is devastated, so I'm guessing he ducks and runs.
Maybe so, but if we continue to draw attention to the discussions he has abandoned his position becomes clearer to anyone who may come across these threads. It is often the hope that if the discussion moves on far enough the original unanswered questions will be forgotten. I'm not letting it go. I will continue to ask every day he posts until I get a satisfactory response. If he gets tired of seeing the same question over and over again he can engage or concede the point, but I am not letting it slip under the radar.
-
Tarkus, does it not occur to you that the Sun moves across the Lunar sky? I believe that the solar panel "chased" the Sun into the Lunar afternoon and stopped there. Surveyor III could not be "awakened" after the 14 day cold-soak it received during the Lunar night, so the Solar panel remained where it was when the lander shut down.
That's exactly right -- you beat me to it. This is early local morning, so the sun is in the east. The photo is taken looking roughly northwest, so the solar panel is still pointed to the west where the sun set before the Surveyor died.
The Apollo 12 site is near the moon's equator in the moon's western hemisphere (west of the prime meridian that runs down the middle of the near side) so the earth is east of overhead. And because the earth remains almost stationary in the lunar sky, Surveyor's high-gain antenna still points in that direction -- the same direction as the high-gain S-band antenna in the background next to the Apollo 12 LM.
You know, I hadn't noticed that before. This is why I take the time to rebut hoaxers; I almost always learn or at least notice something new even though they never do.
-
Tarkus, does it not occur to you that the Sun moves across the Lunar sky? I believe that the solar panel "chased" the Sun into the Lunar afternoon and stopped there. Surveyor III could not be "awakened" after the 14 day cold-soak it received during the Lunar night, so the Solar panel remained where it was when the lander shut down.
That's exactly right -- you beat me to it. This is early local morning, so the sun is in the east. The photo is taken looking roughly northwest, so the solar panel is still pointed to the west where the sun set before the Surveyor died.
The Apollo 12 site is near the moon's equator in the moon's western hemisphere (west of the prime meridian that runs down the middle of the near side) so the earth is east of overhead. And because the earth remains almost stationary in the lunar sky, Surveyor's high-gain antenna still points in that direction -- the same direction as the high-gain S-band antenna in the background next to the Apollo 12 LM.
You know, I hadn't noticed that before. This is why I take the time to rebut hoaxers; I almost always learn or at least notice something new even though they never do.
And/or new information is derived by looking up information. For example, until this thread I thought both of the upper panels were solar
-
but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2afdhcz.jpg)
Clouds cleared for a while tonight and nice 49% Moon which reminded me of tarkus' Earth image, so thought I'd post some examples of the effect "exposure" has on an image.
As we all know exposure is determined by ISO, shutter speed, and aperture. All the below images are ISO 800 and f/4.5. I have varied shutter speed to attempt to get some stars into the image. Focal length is 86mm.
So first up, with shutter speed 1/400 sec. This gives a nicely exposed Moon with lots of crater detail (see red inset), but of course the shutter speed is too fast to pick up stars.
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/moon-400th-sec_zpsnfkbavcv.jpg)
Let's try a shutter speed four times longer, 1/50 sec:
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/moon-50th-sec_zpsz9n5kgww.jpg)
Unfortunately we have now over-exposed the Moon, leaving only a little detail around the terminator. Again though, stars are not visible.
Finally, let's go for a really long shutter speed of 2 seconds (100 times longer than last time).
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/moon-2-sec_zpsg1uoa7es.jpg)
We have now totally blown the Moon out and lost all detail. But finally, we can see (a few) stars!
This illustrates why that photo of the Earth has no stars in it, to get the correct exposure for the Earth means using a fast shutter speed (for a given ISO and aperture) which means the faint stars are under-exposed and thus not visible.
Hope that helps you understand exposure now tarkus.
-
Nice demonstration, but I feel it will be lost on him.
-
It appears from what he's written that he believes atmosphere matters.
-
It appears from what he's written that he believes atmosphere matters.
Of course we need it to breathe ::)
-
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/moon-2-sec_zpsg1uoa7es.jpg)
We have now totally blown the Moon out and lost all detail. But finally, we can see (a few) stars!
And the earthshine illuminating the dark half also shows up quite nicely. Normally you can see that by eye only around new (or old) moon, when it's a thin crescent.
-
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/moon-2-sec_zpsg1uoa7es.jpg)
We have now totally blown the Moon out and lost all detail. But finally, we can see (a few) stars!
And the earthshine illuminating the dark half also shows up quite nicely. Normally you can see that by eye only around new (or old) moon, when it's a thin crescent.
Yes, for those of you just tuning-in, we have an actual photograph of the dark side of the Moon!!!1!
-
Yes, for those of you just tuning-in, we have an actual photograph of the dark side of the Moon!!!1!
Hahahahahahahahahaha...
-
Tarkus, does it not occur to you that the Sun moves across the Lunar sky? I believe that the solar panel "chased" the Sun into the Lunar afternoon and stopped there. Surveyor III could not be "awakened" after the 14 day cold-soak it received during the Lunar night, so the Solar panel remained where it was when the lander shut down.
That's exactly right -- you beat me to it. This is early local morning, so the sun is in the east. The photo is taken looking roughly northwest, so the solar panel is still pointed to the west where the sun set before the Surveyor died.
The Apollo 12 site is near the moon's equator in the moon's western hemisphere (west of the prime meridian that runs down the middle of the near side) so the earth is east of overhead. And because the earth remains almost stationary in the lunar sky, Surveyor's high-gain antenna still points in that direction -- the same direction as the high-gain S-band antenna in the background next to the Apollo 12 LM.
You know, I hadn't noticed that before. This is why I take the time to rebut hoaxers; I almost always learn or at least notice something new even though they never do.
If you look closely, both panels have identical lunar probe inclination in both photos ... too coincidental.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/16ifry1.jpg)
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2ry215v.jpg)
Moreover, if I wanted to make the most of a fixed solar panel, would place it parallel to the ground and not inclined as seen in the image.
-
LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!
Then go look it up.
Who claims shows meantime I refuse to believe that.
I'm not going to waste my time providing a link so that you can ignore it, deny it, or move the goalposts.
I long for a hoax believer to debate with some intellectual honesty.
If you show that filmed the lunar rover to Earth, I will recognize their effort and admit that he is right, otherwise you become like a boastful liar.
-
LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!
Then go look it up.
Who claims shows meantime I refuse to believe that.
I'm not going to waste my time providing a link so that you can ignore it, deny it, or move the goalposts.
I long for a hoax believer to debate with some intellectual honesty.
If you show that filmed the lunar rover to Earth, I will recognize their effort and admit that he is right, otherwise you become like a boastful liar.
That is awfully strong language, especially since you won't go looking for the video.
-
LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!
Then go look it up.
Who claims shows meantime I refuse to believe that.
I'm not going to waste my time providing a link so that you can ignore it, deny it, or move the goalposts.
I long for a hoax believer to debate with some intellectual honesty.
If you show that filmed the lunar rover to Earth, I will recognize their effort and admit that he is right, otherwise you become like a boastful liar.
That is awfully strong language, especially since you won't go looking for the video.
You understand very well that send someone to look for something nonexistent is teasing ... no? everything else is poor excuses, who claims shows or silent.
-
LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!
Then go look it up.
Who claims shows meantime I refuse to believe that.
I'm not going to waste my time providing a link so that you can ignore it, deny it, or move the goalposts.
I long for a hoax believer to debate with some intellectual honesty.
If you show that filmed the lunar rover to Earth, I will recognize their effort and admit that he is right, otherwise you become like a boastful liar.
That is awfully strong language, especially since you won't go looking for the video.
You understand very well that send someone to look for something nonexistent is teasing ... no? everything else is poor excuses, who claims shows or silent.
What are you saying is nonexistent?
-
You understand very well that send someone to look for something nonexistent is teasing ... no? everything else is poor excuses, who claims shows or silent.
Get over yourself. You've made a whole string of claims that amount to denying the existence of certain kinds of evidence. Yet when that evidence is pushed under you very nose, you still deny it. That behavior fairly excuses anyone else from any obligation to produce arbitrary evidence for you. You've made claims that imply you've studied the Apollo evidence thoroughly. Yet it is quite clear you have not. When you can demonstrate even a cursory familiarity with the pertinent evidence, then you can oblige people to produce obscure bits of it that become relevant. But when you stand there ignorant as a child and unwilling to be taught in any respect, you don't get to claim any sort of moral high ground.
-
LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!
Then go look it up.
Who claims shows meantime I refuse to believe that.
I'm not going to waste my time providing a link so that you can ignore it, deny it, or move the goalposts.
I long for a hoax believer to debate with some intellectual honesty.
If you show that filmed the lunar rover to Earth, I will recognize their effort and admit that he is right, otherwise you become like a boastful liar.
Care to have a wager on whether there exists TV footage of the earth as shot by the GCTA from the lunar surface? Say, €400,000? Perhaps you want to peruse through a book called "Live TV From the Moon" before taking on that bet.
-
LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!
Then go look it up.
Who claims shows meantime I refuse to believe that.
I'm not going to waste my time providing a link so that you can ignore it, deny it, or move the goalposts.
I long for a hoax believer to debate with some intellectual honesty.
If you show that filmed the lunar rover to Earth, I will recognize their effort and admit that he is right, otherwise you become like a boastful liar.
That is awfully strong language, especially since you won't go looking for the video.
You understand very well that send someone to look for something nonexistent is teasing ... no? everything else is poor excuses, who claims shows or silent.
I'll repeat it for good measure: Lunar rovers filmed Earth on several occasions, including after the ascent module returned to orbit. Those views of Earth are time and date specific.
EVA footage is not hard to find. How come you find it so difficult?
-
Tarkus, does it not occur to you that the Sun moves across the Lunar sky? I believe that the solar panel "chased" the Sun into the Lunar afternoon and stopped there. Surveyor III could not be "awakened" after the 14 day cold-soak it received during the Lunar night, so the Solar panel remained where it was when the lander shut down.
That's exactly right -- you beat me to it. This is early local morning, so the sun is in the east. The photo is taken looking roughly northwest, so the solar panel is still pointed to the west where the sun set before the Surveyor died.
The Apollo 12 site is near the moon's equator in the moon's western hemisphere (west of the prime meridian that runs down the middle of the near side) so the earth is east of overhead. And because the earth remains almost stationary in the lunar sky, Surveyor's high-gain antenna still points in that direction -- the same direction as the high-gain S-band antenna in the background next to the Apollo 12 LM.
You know, I hadn't noticed that before. This is why I take the time to rebut hoaxers; I almost always learn or at least notice something new even though they never do.
If you look closely, both panels have identical lunar probe inclination in both photos ... too coincidental.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/16ifry1.jpg)
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2ry215v.jpg)
Moreover, if I wanted to make the most of a fixed solar panel, would place it parallel to the ground and not inclined as seen in the image.
First, it would not be hard to figure out what angles to place the high gain antenna and the solar panel. I suspect that the engineers did just that to bring the highest order of verisimilitude to the training. These missions were not cheap in either effort or expense, so making the training as realistic as possible would be a benefit.
As for the solar panel, the most efficient use would be as close to s right angle to the sun's rays as possible. The panel was motorized. Assuming that you don't live in the equatorial regions, look at any solar array - even the fixed ones are at an angle to optimize their exposure to the sun. Many change their Angie during the year to account for the change in the sun's declination as the seasons pass. And some arrays pivot on two axis during the day to take the best advantage of the light.
Before you say anything about this is the 2010's and they didn't have the computing power back then, this (although I couldn't draw you the circuit) can all be done with analog feedback circuits.
-
Moreover, if I wanted to make the most of a fixed solar panel, would place it parallel to the ground and not inclined as seen in the image.
A classic hoaxie mistake, namely using what they think should be the case rather than applying any thought or research behind it. PV solar panels are hardly a rare sight nowadays. How many PV solar arrays have you seen, Tarkus, that are laid flat on the ground?
I'm feeling generous, so to save you some effort, click here:
http://bfy.tw/2PUL
Count them up and come back to us with the number that are laid flat, compared to the number that are tilted. Or shall we just skip all of that and add solar energy to the ever-growing list of subjects that you are happy to talk about without knowing anything about?
By the way.....we are still waiting for you to answer some questions (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=864.msg34623#msg34623).
1. What quantity of Martian meteorites do we posses?
2. What traces of a high-speed transition through Earth's atmosphere would be left on a rock that originated from the Moon or Mars?
3. Do you think that these traces are present or absent in the Apollo samples?
4. Do you know if we are in possession of "Moon meteorites" (that is, rocks that originated from the Moon and have been found on Earth)?
5. Do you think that those Moon meteorites will be the same as the Apollo samples?
-
Moreover, if I wanted to make the most of a fixed solar panel, would place it parallel to the ground and not inclined as seen in the image.
Except it's not a fixed solar panel. It took me all of two minutes to find the following in the Surveyor press kit:
An antenna/solar panel positioner atop the mast supports and rotates the planar array antenna and solar panel in either direction along four axes. This freedom of movement allows orienting the antenna toward earth and the solar panel toward the Sun.
-
Moreover, if I wanted to make the most of a fixed solar panel, would place it parallel to the ground and not inclined as seen in the image.
Please tell us WHY you would do this. In detail.
For what it's worth, a number of my neighbours have domestic solar panels, and NONE of these are fitted parallel to the ground.....
-
Moreover, if I wanted to make the most of a fixed solar panel, would place it parallel to the ground and not inclined as seen in the image.
A classic hoaxie mistake, namely using what they think should be the case rather than applying any thought or research behind it. PV solar panels are hardly a rare sight nowadays. How many PV solar arrays have you seen, Tarkus, that are laid flat on the ground?
I'm feeling generous, so to save you some effort, click here:
http://bfy.tw/2PUL
Count them up and come back to us with the number that are laid flat, compared to the number that are tilted. Or shall we just skip all of that and add solar energy to the ever-growing list of subjects that you are happy to talk about without knowing anything about?
By the way.....we are still waiting for you to answer some questions (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=864.msg34623#msg34623).
1. What quantity of Martian meteorites do we posses?
2. What traces of a high-speed transition through Earth's atmosphere would be left on a rock that originated from the Moon or Mars?
3. Do you think that these traces are present or absent in the Apollo samples?
4. Do you know if we are in possession of "Moon meteorites" (that is, rocks that originated from the Moon and have been found on Earth)?
5. Do you think that those Moon meteorites will be the same as the Apollo samples?
ingenious coding of a web request.
-
Moreover, if I wanted to make the most of a fixed solar panel, would place it parallel to the ground and not inclined as seen in the image.
The reason Earth has seasons and different climates at the poles and the tropics is the very reason you would not do this if you were going to mount a fixed solar panel and get the most power output from it, tarkus....
-
Maybe someone one can check me on this, but it seems to me that the solar array/antenna axis is substantially rotated to the right (CCW looking down at the vehicle) of the TV camera mast in the ground training picture as compared to the EVA position. In fact, I'm sure of it; look at the position of the nearest landing leg in the two images (AP12-KSC-69PC-546 and AS12-48-7135/6). tarkus complains because "both panels have identical lunar probe inclinations" between the photos, but it's really not even close; the angle is only nearly identical with respect to the photographer's point of view.
If I am not hallucinating, this is yet another thing tarkus gets wrong.
-
Maybe someone one can check me on this, but it seems to me that the solar array/antenna axis is substantially rotated to the right (CCW looking down at the vehicle) of the TV camera mast in the ground training picture as compared to the EVA position. In fact, I'm sure of it; look at the position of the nearest landing leg in the two images (AP12-KSC-69PC-546 and AS12-48-7135/6). tarkus complains because "both panels have identical lunar probe inclinations" between the photos, but it's really not even close; the angle is only nearly identical with respect to the photographer's point of view.
If I am not hallucinating, this is yet another thing tarkus gets wrong.
If one quickly looks a the image as tarkus probably does, the angle of the two panels is similar, but upon closer examination they aren't identical.
-
tarkus, BTW here is an image of the battery, from surveyor III
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7138HR.jpg
-
Maybe someone one can check me on this, but it seems to me that the solar array/antenna axis is substantially rotated to the right (CCW looking down at the vehicle) of the TV camera mast in the ground training picture as compared to the EVA position.
Yup, just draw lines across the diagonal of the nearer panel, and see the angles are TOTALLY different, as well as the proportion of the triangle formed between
(http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac31/googlertoo/Surv%2002.jpg)
(http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac31/googlertoo/Surv%2001.jpg)
-
To be clear, I'm not really talking about the apparent view of the array. I'm talking about the pointing of the array with respect to the spacecraft bus itself. In the ground picture, the antenna face is pointed substantially further away from the #2 leg (closest to viewer). Tarkus insinuates that the same unit, unchanged, was used for both the training images and this taken on the Moon - even the solar array hasn't budged. Except it clearly has "moved" between the training unit and Surveyor 3. So tarkus is wrong about that.
He also complained that the solar array wasn't pointing at the Sun, but as was explained to him, it was pointing to the last "sunset" before cold soak killed the spacecraft. So he was wrong about there being no reason for that.
Of course, he was also fundamentally wrong about the solar array being "fixed"; and he repeated this error after being told it wasn't. So he was doubly wrong there.
tarkus, don't you ever reconsider your position given how many mistakes you make?
If not, why should anyone continue trying to educate you? I have asked these questions before. Please answer them.
-
For that matter the simulation is on a floor, not on any kind of a "dusty" terrain
-
And the training mockup is on a wheeled fixture. There are innumerable differences, some very significant and others trivial. Tarkus isn't the first to try to repurpose accurate training aids as props in a hoax. It's just a plain old affirmed consequent.
-
Here is Surveyor from a different perspective, tarkus note the position of the top panels.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7145HR.jpg
-
LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!
Then go look it up.
Who claims shows meantime I refuse to believe that.
I'm not going to waste my time providing a link so that you can ignore it, deny it, or move the goalposts.
I long for a hoax believer to debate with some intellectual honesty.
If you show that filmed the lunar rover to Earth, I will recognize their effort and admit that he is right, otherwise you become like a boastful liar.
That is awfully strong language, especially since you won't go looking for the video.
You understand very well that send someone to look for something nonexistent is teasing ... no? everything else is poor excuses, who claims shows or silent.
I found the footage in less than five minutes using Google.
-
Actually, I'm being generous. I found it in one minute
-
Easy as pie
-
Easy as cake....
-
You understand very well that send someone to look for something nonexistent is teasing ... no? everything else is poor excuses, who claims shows or silent.
Get over yourself. You've made a whole string of claims that amount to denying the existence of certain kinds of evidence. Yet when that evidence is pushed under you very nose, you still deny it. That behavior fairly excuses anyone else from any obligation to produce arbitrary evidence for you. You've made claims that imply you've studied the Apollo evidence thoroughly. Yet it is quite clear you have not. When you can demonstrate even a cursory familiarity with the pertinent evidence, then you can oblige people to produce obscure bits of it that become relevant. But when you stand there ignorant as a child and unwilling to be taught in any respect, you don't get to claim any sort of moral high ground.
Nonsense ... the user who claims the Earth lunar rover photographed refused to prove the stupidity that was invented. Then he demanded that I seek and find such material (?).
And like any honest person can understand, that says something is who should try, if you do not agree with this is that you are crazy or a complete idiot.
-
tarkus, you are more full of wind and piss than a barber's cat! You have repeatedly been provided with links you have asked for, and you have repeatedly ignored them, hand-waved them away, denied their content or moved the goalposts. Its time you learned to do your own research to come up with the answers you want. We've had enough of doing your donkey-work for you.
I have posted elsewhere on this forum an example of a teenage schoolgirl who runs rings around you for clarity of thought and understanding of scientific method. She puts you and your CT/HB mates to shame... you could learn a lot just from reading how she went about things, but sadly you won't, because you can't. Your mind is bolted shut!
-
...if you do not agree with this is that you are crazy or a complete idiot.
No. People aren't stupid or crazy because they disagree with you. Your laziness and incompetence doesn't oblige others to do the research you should have done before making the claims you've made. In the time it's taken you to accuse everyone else of impropriety several times over on this matter, you could have found it. As others have demonstrated, it's not at all hard to find. To someone who is familiar with the Apollo record, it's remarkably easy to find. You'd rather whine than learn.
-
You understand very well that send someone to look for something nonexistent is teasing ... no? everything else is poor excuses, who claims shows or silent.
Get over yourself. You've made a whole string of claims that amount to denying the existence of certain kinds of evidence. Yet when that evidence is pushed under you very nose, you still deny it. That behavior fairly excuses anyone else from any obligation to produce arbitrary evidence for you. You've made claims that imply you've studied the Apollo evidence thoroughly. Yet it is quite clear you have not. When you can demonstrate even a cursory familiarity with the pertinent evidence, then you can oblige people to produce obscure bits of it that become relevant. But when you stand there ignorant as a child and unwilling to be taught in any respect, you don't get to claim any sort of moral high ground.
Nonsense ... the user who claims the Earth lunar rover photographed refused to prove the stupidity that was invented. Then he demanded that I seek and find such material (?).
And like any honest person can understand, that says something is who should try, if you do not agree with this is that you are crazy or a complete idiot.
I demand it again. It took me three words typed into Google, and the video was the first hit. Surely one who easily researches HB sites isn't going to let himself be stymied by Google?
-
OK, I got a copy of Spacecraft films Apollo 17 DVDs. and, well, I can find video of after Apollo 17 left, and of the rover taking video of Earth, but not both.
-
He also complained that the solar array wasn't pointing at the Sun, but as was explained to him, it was pointing to the last "sunset" before cold soak killed the spacecraft.
That's obviously what happened, but I do wonder why they didn't park the array facing east so it would pick up the sun when it rose again.
Surveyor 1 did survive for 7 months so nighttime cold didn't always kill the electronics.
-
Yup, just draw lines across the diagonal of the nearer panel, and see the angles are TOTALLY different
Good work. Now, for extra credit, show that the Surveyor high gain antenna and the S-band dish deployed next to the LM in the distance point in the same direction: at earth. :)
-
You understand very well that send someone to look for something nonexistent is teasing ... no? everything else is poor excuses, who claims shows or silent.
Get over yourself. You've made a whole string of claims that amount to denying the existence of certain kinds of evidence. Yet when that evidence is pushed under you very nose, you still deny it. That behavior fairly excuses anyone else from any obligation to produce arbitrary evidence for you. You've made claims that imply you've studied the Apollo evidence thoroughly. Yet it is quite clear you have not. When you can demonstrate even a cursory familiarity with the pertinent evidence, then you can oblige people to produce obscure bits of it that become relevant. But when you stand there ignorant as a child and unwilling to be taught in any respect, you don't get to claim any sort of moral high ground.
Nonsense ... the user who claims the Earth lunar rover photographed refused to prove the stupidity that was invented. Then he demanded that I seek and find such material (?).
And like any honest person can understand, that says something is who should try, if you do not agree with this is that you are crazy or a complete idiot.
I grow weary of your adolescent behavior. Here is the Apollo 17 lunar liftoff and a pan after the ascent stage is well beyond goo video of it, you will notice the pan after that.
The earth is not contained in this pan, but if you look at this video you will see the earth on a Couple of occurrences taken from the LRV camera.
Now amit you were wrong that this type of video didn't exist.
-
Yep, right there around 19 minutes into the video.
Tarkus, once again you are wrong. Don't all your errors, one after another, ever make you reconsider your beliefs?
If you never reconsider your claims, despite being so routinely wrong, and so easily shown to be wrong, then why should anyone waste any more time trying to educate you?
I have asked you these questions numerous times. Please answer them.
-
Yep, right there around 19 minutes into the video.
Tarkus, once again you are wrong. Don't all your errors, one after another, ever make you reconsider your beliefs?
If you never reconsider your claims, despite being so routinely wrong, and so easily shown to be wrong, then why should anyone waste any more time trying to educate you?
I have asked you these questions numerous times. Please answer them.
e probably didn't have 19 minutes in his life to learn something or change his mind.
-
Nonsense ... the user who claims the Earth lunar rover photographed refused to prove the stupidity that was invented. Then he demanded that I seek and find such material (?).
And like any honest person can understand, that says something is who should try, if you do not agree with this is that you are crazy or a complete idiot.
tarkus, honest people are willing to research and discuss problems that have been shown to exist with their opinions and ideas. You have continually shown you are unwilling to do that. So who's really being honest here?
.....Oh wait, you don't answer questions do you? Oops, that's another question. When will I ever learn! :-\
-
tarkus, honest people are willing to research and discuss problems that have been shown to exist with their opinions and ideas. You have continually shown you are unwilling to do that. So who's really being honest here?
That's the key meta issue. Affirmative claims bear the burden of proof. But tarkus offers little more than negative claims. "X doesn't exist in the record, and that's suspicious." Naturally the only way that constitutes an actionable argument is if the proponent can demonstrate that he's searched diligently, if not exhaustively, for X. In real scholarship, proponents who make that sort of claim get the benefit of the doubt. They either have stature in the field that lets readers presume they are diligent. (Stature is hard to acquire otherwise.) Or they're making the statement in a context where the readers would agree with it on its face, as a known deficiency in the pertinent record. We even afford it a little bit to conspiracy theorists who pop in out of the blue, even though we shouldn't.
Negative propositions are insidious as an opening shot because the most effective and direct rebuttal is to do as we've done here: simply refer to the evidence in the record. "Oh yeah? Well here's the X you say doesn't exist." But that's an affirmative rebuttal. It bears the burden of proof, and people familiar with the record can easily satisfy it. So a negative opening that effectively shifts the burden of proof puts the hoax claimant immediately in what seems like a strong position.
But the opponent having satisfied his burden of proof, it then shifts back to the claimant to deal with it. And we've seen how tarkus deals with it through evasion or ad hoc revision. When that happens enough times, the presumption of diligence erodes and the burden no longer shifts to the opponent. Upon the new claim, "Y doesn't exist in the record, and it should," a defensible response is, "You haven't done a diligent search." Tarkus hasn't enjoyed the presumption of diligence for quite some time now. And that means he is disqualified from shifting the burden for this type of claim onto his opponent. Ignorance of the evidence is not a position from which an argument of suspicious absence has any probative value.
-
Did you watch the two videos that I linked to you, and now ready to admit
1. Videos do exist even though you failed to look for them?
2. That yes the earth was captured in video by the LRV camera. And yes the lunar launch was recorded by the same LRV camera?