Mankind to return to the moon?
11 September 2008, 09:35 AM
#241
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering your views on global warming, I'm really quite surprised you would even entertain believing the half baked ideas of the CTers!
Geezer
11 September 2008, 09:37 AM
#242
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 September 2008, 01:56 AM
#244
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then go and have a look at Clavius which explains it. It's all fairly straightforward.
Considering your views on global warming, I'm really quite surprised you would even entertain believing the half baked ideas of the CTers!
Geezer
Considering your views on global warming, I'm really quite surprised you would even entertain believing the half baked ideas of the CTers!
Geezer
Last edited by Klaatu; 12 September 2008 at 02:07 AM.
12 September 2008, 02:10 AM
#245
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been here all along, I've not been able to log in until yesterday...and I've been busy with immigration too.
Last edited by Klaatu; 12 September 2008 at 03:27 AM.
12 September 2008, 08:45 AM
#246
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never mentioned anything about CT, all I stated was that some of the official pictures are odd. If you believe "no dust on landers feet" and "objects appearing in front of camera etch marks" can be explained away with words then you have poor understanding of technology, rockets and cameras in particular.
As for cameras, I understand them perfectly thankyou, and the reasons why things appear in front of the etch marks (try holding a pencil up to the Sun, you may learn a thing or two), it really isn't a mystery or fake at all.
Geezer
12 September 2008, 10:04 AM
#247
Scooby Regular
Dear god, we seem to have become a world full of do-gooders that should feel guilty whenever we do something "just for the hell of it".
What's happened to being pioneering and oing things just because we can? We are made to feel guilty every single day at the minute. Drive a car and you are killing the planet and wasting fuel, switch your TV on and its using power, turn your heating on because you are cold and you are depleting the atmosphere!!
Nothing is fun any more, maybe we should go back to living in caves and sharing everything we have regardless of whether you work hard or not.
It really pisses me off when people ask for justification of everything, sometimes we should just do things because they are a laugh, go and blow £50 of fuel, have a bet, eat some cakes, go for an expensive meal, leave the TV on standby, put your heating on max and tell all the tree huggers to **** off.
12 September 2008, 10:55 AM
#248
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, you really don't understand do you? Firsly, the dust on the moon landers feet has nothing to do with how rockets work, it's do with an airless environment. Secondly, there are pictures with dust on the landers feet, just not as much as people think there should be (due to their lack of understanding of how moon dust will behave)
As for cameras, I understand them perfectly thankyou, and the reasons why things appear in front of the etch marks (try holding a pencil up to the Sun, you may learn a thing or two), it really isn't a mystery or fake at all.
Geezer
As for cameras, I understand them perfectly thankyou, and the reasons why things appear in front of the etch marks (try holding a pencil up to the Sun, you may learn a thing or two), it really isn't a mystery or fake at all.
Geezer
I think you need to look a bit closer at some of those official pictures, y'know, the ones that don't have a back lit (By the Sun) object in them which are questionable.
12 September 2008, 11:39 AM
#254
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funniest thing I've read in a long time. Are you suggesting that for a froce (Rocket engine thrust, as seen in the touch down footage) to act on an object (Dust particles) you need air? Ha ha ha ha ha.....!
I think you need to look a bit closer at some of those official pictures, y'know, the ones that don't have a back lit (By the Sun) object in them which are questionable.
I think you need to look a bit closer at some of those official pictures, y'know, the ones that don't have a back lit (By the Sun) object in them which are questionable.
It's the same principle why meteor craters form, except it is more obvious as the ejecta is very heavy so behaves the same way that ALL objects would on the moon.
As for the potographs, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them fro a photographic point of view. What you have is a basic misunderstanding of how light is reflected and how film emulsions work.
But hell, don't let that stand in the way of a good CT!
Geezer
12 September 2008, 11:40 AM
#255
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No dust on the landing feet of the lander, even after landing with a powerful rocket underneath, but dust on absolutely everything else, the rover, spacesuits, gloves, so fine even the astronaughts commented on it...etc etc etc etc...I'm talking about the officially released pictures BTW.
12 September 2008, 11:42 AM
#256
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, struggling? The rockets disturbed the dust, and they are suspended, ableit weakly and very briefly, by the gases expelled. However, as the environment is essentially airless (or gasless), the dust soon falls down. However, because we have no gas, the dust is free to follow the original trajectory that it was blown by the expelled gas from the engine, and (mostly) falls away from it's starting point.
It's the same principle why meteor craters form, except it is more obvious as the ejecta is very heavy so behaves the same way that ALL objects would on the moon.
As for the potographs, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them fro a photographic point of view. What you have is a basic misunderstanding of how light is reflected and how film emulsions work.
But hell, don't let that stand in the way of a good CT!
Geezer
It's the same principle why meteor craters form, except it is more obvious as the ejecta is very heavy so behaves the same way that ALL objects would on the moon.
As for the potographs, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them fro a photographic point of view. What you have is a basic misunderstanding of how light is reflected and how film emulsions work.
But hell, don't let that stand in the way of a good CT!
Geezer
12 September 2008, 11:52 AM
#257
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No dust on the landing feet of the lander, even after landing with a powerful rocket underneath, but dust on absolutely everything else, the rover, spacesuits, gloves, so fine even the astronaughts commented on it...etc etc etc etc...I'm talking about the officially released pictures BTW.
Trying throwing a stone, as hard a you can into some sand. See how much of that sand falls back into the hole made by the stone. Or better still, go to Metoerite Crater in Arizona and find all the ejecta. Nope, it ain't in the are of the crater.
The dust was free to follow it trajectory, and some of it, as seen in the pics above is on the feet, and some is not. What exactly did you expect to see, the feet buried under several inches of dust?
So we do have dust on the lander feet, and on everything else, so what's your issue?
The rovers are slight different anyway. If you look at any vehicle moving through a dusty environment, the way that the dust is thrown up is not the same is a rock hitting, or a rocket engine thrusting. The vehicle also moves through the main dust cloud, and inevitably picks up a lot of dust. The Lunar Landing Module was in a vertical descent and the dust was essetnially moving away from it.
Still, you believe what you like, don't let some good old fashioned facts get in the way.
Geezer
12 September 2008, 02:06 PM
#258
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watch from The Earth to the Moon. If those guys didn't get there, then NASA is producing the greatest actors in history.
Answer one question for me please. It's from the film.
By the time Apollo 13 launched, most of civilisation wasn't interested in moon missions. The US networks didn't even broadcast the astronauts show. So why do another 6 moon missions? Why fake it 9 times?
Answer one question for me please. It's from the film.
By the time Apollo 13 launched, most of civilisation wasn't interested in moon missions. The US networks didn't even broadcast the astronauts show. So why do another 6 moon missions? Why fake it 9 times?
12 September 2008, 02:44 PM
#259
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These same feet? 1 or 2 or 3.
Trying throwing a stone, as hard a you can into some sand. See how much of that sand falls back into the hole made by the stone. Or better still, go to Metoerite Crater in Arizona and find all the ejecta. Nope, it ain't in the are of the crater.
The dust was free to follow it trajectory, and some of it, as seen in the pics above is on the feet, and some is not. What exactly did you expect to see, the feet buried under several inches of dust?
So we do have dust on the lander feet, and on everything else, so what's your issue?
The rovers are slight different anyway. If you look at any vehicle moving through a dusty environment, the way that the dust is thrown up is not the same is a rock hitting, or a rocket engine thrusting. The vehicle also moves through the main dust cloud, and inevitably picks up a lot of dust. The Lunar Landing Module was in a vertical descent and the dust was essetnially moving away from it.
Still, you believe what you like, don't let some good old fashioned facts get in the way.
Geezer
Trying throwing a stone, as hard a you can into some sand. See how much of that sand falls back into the hole made by the stone. Or better still, go to Metoerite Crater in Arizona and find all the ejecta. Nope, it ain't in the are of the crater.
The dust was free to follow it trajectory, and some of it, as seen in the pics above is on the feet, and some is not. What exactly did you expect to see, the feet buried under several inches of dust?
So we do have dust on the lander feet, and on everything else, so what's your issue?
The rovers are slight different anyway. If you look at any vehicle moving through a dusty environment, the way that the dust is thrown up is not the same is a rock hitting, or a rocket engine thrusting. The vehicle also moves through the main dust cloud, and inevitably picks up a lot of dust. The Lunar Landing Module was in a vertical descent and the dust was essetnially moving away from it.
Still, you believe what you like, don't let some good old fashioned facts get in the way.
Geezer
12 September 2008, 02:47 PM
#260
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watch from The Earth to the Moon. If those guys didn't get there, then NASA is producing the greatest actors in history.
Answer one question for me please. It's from the film.
By the time Apollo 13 launched, most of civilisation wasn't interested in moon missions. The US networks didn't even broadcast the astronauts show. So why do another 6 moon missions? Why fake it 9 times?
Answer one question for me please. It's from the film.
By the time Apollo 13 launched, most of civilisation wasn't interested in moon missions. The US networks didn't even broadcast the astronauts show. So why do another 6 moon missions? Why fake it 9 times?
Actually, it doesn't. 
12 September 2008, 03:02 PM
#262
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watch from The Earth to the Moon. If those guys didn't get there, then NASA is producing the greatest actors in history.
Answer one question for me please. It's from the film.
By the time Apollo 13 launched, most of civilisation wasn't interested in moon missions. The US networks didn't even broadcast the astronauts show. So why do another 6 moon missions? Why fake it 9 times?
Answer one question for me please. It's from the film.
By the time Apollo 13 launched, most of civilisation wasn't interested in moon missions. The US networks didn't even broadcast the astronauts show. So why do another 6 moon missions? Why fake it 9 times?
There were only 6 "successful" moon landings. Purely conjecture, but Apollo 13 became the disaster mission purely to re-kindle the interest in the "look how great we are" Apollo programme, and the further four missions just to keep the pressure up in the Cold War stakes. Besides, they had already said they would do nine missions, i believe the last two intended missions were abandoned when it was realised the cost of getting the rocket up in the sky wasn't outweighing the political benefit.
12 September 2008, 03:02 PM
#263
Scooby Regular
12 September 2008, 03:11 PM
#265
Scooby Regular
12 September 2008, 03:26 PM
#267
Scooby Regular
The previous stuff, e.g. 'Interesting subject. I do find some of the official pictures a little odd, multiple light sources, no dust on the landers feet, etch marks behind objects etc etc..', are you really serious that NASA could attempt to fool the best minds around
Are you really suggesting that there is doubt about one or more of the moon landings? If you are, then as previously stated; You need to lie down for a while.
12 September 2008, 03:30 PM
#268
Scooby Regular
12 September 2008, 03:34 PM
#269
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No! As I said, could be entirely accurate.
The previous stuff, e.g. 'Interesting subject. I do find some of the official pictures a little odd, multiple light sources, no dust on the landers feet, etch marks behind objects etc etc..', are you really serious that NASA could attempt to fool the best minds around
Are you really suggesting that there is doubt about one or more of the moon landings? If you are, then as previously stated; You need to lie down for a while.
The previous stuff, e.g. 'Interesting subject. I do find some of the official pictures a little odd, multiple light sources, no dust on the landers feet, etch marks behind objects etc etc..', are you really serious that NASA could attempt to fool the best minds around
Are you really suggesting that there is doubt about one or more of the moon landings? If you are, then as previously stated; You need to lie down for a while.
Did "we" put foot on Moon, debateable in my opinion.
12 September 2008, 03:41 PM
#270
Scooby Regular
