kittingerjump Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 That's a lot of mindless rambling on that board!Care to post your own comments & opinions? That's true, but it does highlight the level of mindless rambling that does go on in terms of anything to do with the moon. They went. Mike Collins is a legend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Of course we've been to the Moon.. The only good thing about not going back to the moon since 1972 is that it doesn't look like that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krackersdave Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Oh I like this one - can someone explain this... "In this photograph of John Young readjusting an antenna next to the Lunar Rover Vehicle (LRV), there is a marker, known as a cross-hair (inset) (P), that goes behind the LRV's equipment. These cross-hairs (Q), which appear on all the lunar photographs, are made by a screen of cross-hairs placed between the shutter and the film. The bright, reflected light may have obliterated the fine line of this one, or it could have happened if the image was retouched. The foreground shows what looks like the letter 'C' on a boulder ®. Is this perhaps an identification letter left on a studio prop? The letter C on the original photo is actually quite well defined and it is hard to imagine what can cause such a well-laid inscription on a boulder in a desolate place such as the moon. The tracks made by the LRV's wheel turn rather oddly at right-angles (S). These tracks could have been caused by studio technicians pushing the buggy into place. Such clear tracks and footprints require moisture to form and should not appear on the dry lunar surface." Thanks to Ramandeep Singh for the above.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Oh I like this one - can someone explain this... "In this photograph of John Young readjusting an antenna next to the Lunar Rover Vehicle (LRV), there is a marker, known as a cross-hair (inset) (P), that goes behind the LRV's equipment. These cross-hairs (Q), which appear on all the lunar photographs, are made by a screen of cross-hairs placed between the shutter and the film. The bright, reflected light may have obliterated the fine line of this one, or it could have happened if the image was retouched. The foreground shows what looks like the letter 'C' on a boulder ®. Is this perhaps an identification letter left on a studio prop? The letter C on the original photo is actually quite well defined and it is hard to imagine what can cause such a well-laid inscription on a boulder in a desolate place such as the moon. The tracks made by the LRV's wheel turn rather oddly at right-angles (S). These tracks could have been caused by studio technicians pushing the buggy into place. Such clear tracks and footprints require moisture to form and should not appear on the dry lunar surface." Thanks to Ramandeep Singh for the above.. I think its been quite well established that the first one is the bright light you mentioned and the "C" is a hair on the film during copying, as it isn't on the original image. The lack of water actually helps the process of forming tracks & prints, its a complicated process caused by silicate minerals. You've made the most common mistake of the lunar conspiracy theorist - you've based your assumption of how a waterless, airless & fairly homogenous geological environment behaves based on your experiences on a wet planet with an atmosphere and a complicated geology. I'm not sure I can see a problem with the tracks - the LRV had a tight turning circle after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Thanks to Ramandeep Singh for the above.. I've just been to his blog. Does he actually think this nonsense?!? This is pretty bad: NASA claims the strange shape (E) - in this shot taken from the Lunar Module while it was 95 km above the moon's surface - is a shadow cast by the Command Module's rocket. But when larger aircraft fly at lower altitudes over the Earth, they do not cast such huge and defined shadows. Oh dear, lets have a look at a picture of a lunar module shall we? Now, can you see the windows? That's where the previous picture would have been taken from. Now, can you see the little rocket nozzles just to the side? That's what's in the photo. Apparently he can't tell the difference between a shadow and a silhouette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krackersdave Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I've just been to his blog. Does he actually think this nonsense?!?This is pretty bad: Oh dear, lets have a look at a picture of a lunar module shall we? Now, can you see the windows? That's where the previous picture would have been taken from. Now, can you see the little rocket nozzles just to the side? That's what's in the photo. Apparently he can't tell the difference between a shadow and a silhouette No idea if he believes it or not mate - I suspect so as he spends enough time posting it.. Just one q though - if the shadow is the silhouette of the manouvering thruster on the side why is the dark area visible from the window then the light source is directly behind the camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 No idea if he believes it or not mate - I suspect so as he spends enough time posting it..Just one q though - if the shadow is the silhouette of the manouvering thruster on the side why is the dark area visible from the window then the light source is directly behind the camera? What light source is behind the camera? It can't be the sun, because then the body of the lunar module would be between it and the thrusters - it would be right behind them, given that they're almost above the terminator. And it can't be coming from inside the lunar module as the astronaut's head would be in the way, after all these are small windows, and the lunar module didn't have much light inside it. From memory I would also say the cabin lights were off during the landing, other than the instrument lights. Add to that the fact that the surface is very bright (I suspect the camera had a narrow aperture) and it makes sense that it would be dark in the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krackersdave Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 What light source is behind the camera? It can't be the sun, because then the body of the lunar module would be between it and the thrusters - it would be right behind them, given that they're almost above the terminator. And it can't be coming from inside the lunar module as the astronaut's head would be in the way, after all these are small windows, and the lunar module didn't have much light inside it. From memory I would also say the cabin lights were off during the landing, other than the instrument lights.Add to that the fact that the surface is very bright (I suspect the camera had a narrow aperture) and it makes sense that it would be dark in the picture. Hmmmm I was taking the shadows on the lunar surface as a guide that the sun (the only lunar light source I can think of) was behind the module. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 If you look up at the night sky you will see billions of stars. There are no stars in any of the Moon landing photos. This is because it is impossible to simulate the star effect without it looking like some naff sci fi show so the solution was to simply have black backgrounds. . . . Nuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skullingtonjoe Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 The BBC is running a series of programmes to mark the 40th anniversary of the moon landings - or the supposed moon landings, if a certain class of conspiracy theorist is to be believed. What's the vote? Did it really happen? Was it all a fake? Is there anyone who really believes that it was all staged from a studio in the desert, a la Capricorn One? If we didn`t go to the moon how do we explain Moonbase Alpha? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Hmmmm I was taking the shadows on the lunar surface as a guide that the sun (the only lunar light source I can think of) was behind the module. Exactly, the body of the lunar module is between the sun and the thrusters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 If we didn`t go to the moon how do we explain Moonbase Alpha? Remind me, were there any stars in the sky in the photos of Moonbase Alpha? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 If you look up at the night sky you will see billions of stars. There are no stars in any of the Moon landing photos. This is because it is impossible to simulate the star effect without it looking like some naff sci fi show so the solution was to simply have black backgrounds.. Nuts You're confusing NASA with the guys who edited the expenses receipts. And while I know you jest, I suggest anyone who believes you should take a photo at night using a compact and a flash and see how many stars you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skinty Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 And while I know you jest, I suggest anyone who believes you should take a photo at night using a compact and a flash and see how many stars you get. Surely that depends on how fast you can run away after the flash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athe Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 If you look up at the night sky you will see billions of stars. There are no stars in any of the Moon landing photos. This is because it is impossible to simulate the star effect without it looking like some naff sci fi show so the solution was to simply have black backgrounds. the stars clearly show up in this picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 the stars clearly show up in this picture Yeah, but look how much longer the shadow on the little pink dude is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athe Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Yeah, but look how much longer the shadow on the little pink dude is. That's just due to over exposure of the film to the dry conditions on the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skinty Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Yeah, but look how much longer the shadow on the little pink dude is. Do you use that line for all the ladies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Do you use that line for all the ladies? Yes. Any idea why they usually scream and call the police? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skinty Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Yes. Any idea why they usually scream and call the police? Mmmm .... have you ever considered starring in adult films? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AuntJess Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Mmmm .... have you ever considered starring in adult films? Judging by his avatar, he has the right 'props' for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montesquieu Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 With a good telescope you can actually see equipment left behind on the moon - there's also a mirror system left up there so we can reflect a beam back to measure the distances.If you were very cynical you might say that the minimum conclusion would be that we dropped the kit off there from an orbiter and then faked the human landing side for some reason. Buckers erm ... I don't believe in the conspiracy stuff at all. But it's nonsense that a good telescope from earth can see kit a few metres wide on the moon. It's a quarter of a million miles away and the best we can see is something maybe 100 metres across and even then it would need to be quite high contrast. The Hubble is the wrong design for something so 'close', it points the wrong way and its receptors are designed to maximise collection of very faint light, the moon would be far too bright to point it at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 erm ... I don't believe in the conspiracy stuff at all. But it's nonsense that a good telescope from earth can see kit a few metres wide on the moon. It's a quarter of a million miles away and the best we can see is something maybe 100 metres across and even then it would need to be quite high contrast. The Hubble is the wrong design for something so 'close', it points the wrong way and its receptors are designed to maximise collection of very faint light, the moon would be far too bright to point it at. True, there's nothing that can resolve any man made object on the moon. Well, at least until next month when the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter starts photomapping the moon in unprecedented detail. They hope to image the Apollo 11 landing site in time for next month's 40th anniversary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 If we didn`t go to the moon how do we explain Moonbase Alpha? Can someone explain the purple wigs of UFO? Remind me, were there any stars in the sky in the photos of Moonbase Alpha? The best they could do for stars were Martin Landau and Barbera Bain. Nuff said. Do you use that line for all the ladies? I'm thinking of adopting it though. Could help me score with the niche "educated/science babe" sector. I'm pretty sure they all look like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skullingtonjoe Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Remind me, were there any stars in the sky in the photos of Moonbase Alpha? Not that I can remember - I think they left the sky black (unless it was a `shot of the galaxy / long distance probe etc`) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.