|
I dont believe that the US (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
|
| quote: |
Since the reflected light isnt as bright as the the sunlight, the sunlight should overwhelm the reflecting light
|
Now that's a speculation isn't it ? it has been noted that moon dust is unusually bright. Therefore it is certainly plausable for the reflections to be bright as well. We can argue the ass off it. But a proper conclusion can only be reached after a complete chemical analysis of the soil and study of the optical principles involved.
Secondly, it has been mentioned that the camera settings were designed to reduce the risk of over exposure. Not to mention the fact that the cameras must have been equipped with filters to reduce solar glare. I cannot comment whether this photo is true or fake. But it certainly cannot be dismissed as fake.
| quote: |
And assuming the individual is completely uneducated because they dont have a degree in certain fields is crazy. A google search, a wiki search or a trip to a bookstore can educate people in the same ways a college course can, although obviously it would a bit harder to obtain a career with that means of education :p
|
A google search, Wiki or trip to bookstore will never substitute for the learning experience of a PhD. Can you substitute the learning experince of someone who;s spent 10 year studying his by simply reading books on the subject in your spare time ?? People who've made the lunar mission possible are highly skilled engineers. YOu can criticize their work ONLY if you are an expert in that field and knows what you are talking about.
| quote: |
I'd still like to know how they were able to travel through the Van Allen radiation belt without suffering from some sort of radiation poisoning either directly or without any long term effects. Certainly the walls of their rockets werent made of 6 feet of lead.
|
You are free to meet a NASA engineer and let him explain you how that was done. He is in a position to technically prove how that was done. But you should be in a position to understand the math. If you can't then you should simply accept what he's saying as true.
Extensive NASA data and literature is available to researchers world wide for free. If the Apollo mission was fake, an overwhelming majority of researchers would have proved it so.you wouldn't have had to wait for FOX to break the news. And we all know what happened when FOX started reporting election results from Florida. Bush won :p |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance Nutter
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
you really are a petty little excuse for a person aren't you. |
petty little excuse? as opposed to the really meaningful impactful excuses? Youre a redundant person who is redundant aren't you. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
Youre a redundant person who is *redundant* aren't you.
|
isn't the use of second redundant actually redundant ? :stongue: |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
isn't the use of second redundant actually redundant ? :stongue: |
consistancy is how you rate splatter bonus on a poop |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
consistancy is how you rate splatter bonus on a poop |
um huh..i hear ya :gsmile: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
And assuming the individual is completely uneducated because they dont have a degree in certain fields is crazy. A google search, a wiki search or a trip to a bookstore can educate people in the same ways a college course can, although obviously it would a bit harder to obtain a career with that means of education :p |
yes and no. if someone is merely going to use those sources for research purposes, they have to have a mind capable of separating reliable information from dodgy. not everyone has that capability, certainly not when looking at particularly specialist fields (such as physics in space).
i just find it laughable that people are trying to disprove photographs when there are so many other pieces of evidence that give the conspiracy theorists the big finger.
and again, unless someone knows a whole lot about photography in space, they should avoid swallowing whole the bull posted on conspiracy sites. thats just bad research. people are lazy therefore yes, a bit more effort than clicking on a hyperlink should be made before criticising something they know nothing about. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance Nutter
I am more than you will ever be and your comments in this thread are just proof to that. |
So what you are saying is that
1. I have comments in this thread
2. You are more than I will eve be.
//
1 therefore 2??
Go turn that into your philosophy teacher and make sure you dont tell him that you posted in this thread >.< that might it all up |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
Now that's a speculation isn't it ? it has been noted that moon dust is unusually bright. Therefore it is certainly plausable for the reflections to be bright as well. We can argue the ass off it. But a proper conclusion can only be reached after a complete chemical analysis of the soil and study of the optical principles involved.
Secondly, it has been mentioned that the camera settings were designed to reduce the risk of over exposure. Not to mention the fact that the cameras must have been equipped with filters to reduce solar glare. I cannot comment whether this photo is true or fake. But it certainly cannot be dismissed as fake.
|
again, would this not cause every other vertical face facing the direction of the camera to also be illuminated? If the particles are bright enough to overwhelm the sunlight and illuminated the LEM it certainly would be bright enough to illuminate every vertical surface facing the camera aswell, not to mention moonlight on earth would be significantly brighter. Regardless of the reflective surface of the moon, there wouldnt be enough ambient lighting to illuminate that side of the LEM unless there were other lighting sources, which on the moon, there arent. Ambient lighting reflected off of the moons surface couldnt illuminate that side of the LEM without also illuminating every other surface facing the camera. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | | Originally posted by D-res |
your arguments have a number of flaws and you are making some wild assumptions.
you are forgetting the fact that the LEM is closest to the reflected surface than any other "vertical face" what ever you mean by that. A mountain in the distance ?
light rays reflected from the soil will start to diverge as they travel. As the distance between LEM and the soil is smaller than any other vertical face, the reflected beam will have maximum illuminating power as it strikes the dark side of LEM. As the reflected rays travel further, they diverge and will not illuminate anything in the distance. And if you follow this line of logic it will be clear why
| quote: |
If the particles are bright enough to overwhelm the sunlight and illuminated the LEM it certainly would be bright enough to illuminate every vertical surface facing the camera aswell, not to mention moonlight on earth would be significantly brighter.
|
and
| quote: |
Ambient lighting reflected off of the moons surface couldnt illuminate that side of the LEM without also illuminating every other surface facing the camera.
(you are basically repeating yourself here)
|
will not occur.
| quote: |
Regardless of the reflective surface of the moon, there wouldnt be enough ambient lighting to illuminate that side of the LEM unless there were other lighting sources, which on the moon, there arent.
|
It has been mentioned that the bright soil acts as another source of light. So the question of just one source does not arise at all.
I would suggest : read + think before posting. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| ^^ wow, you kids certainly have a thing for sodomy coz youre just letting omega_m plunder your s over and over again. give up. |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
your arguments have a number of flaws and you are making some wild assumptions.
you are forgetting the fact that the LEM is closest to the reflected surface than any other "vertical face" what ever you mean by that. A mountain in the distance ?
|
any surface facing the camera should also be illuminated by your reasoning.
also by your reasoning, those shadows shouldnt be nearly as dark as they are. if theres enough light reflected off of the surface to illuminate the LEM theres certainly enough to illuminate sorrounding surfaces hidden in shadow, or atleast some light reflected off of the LEM, no?
| quote: |
I would suggest : read + think before posting. |
I'm obviously never going to convince you otherwise because you already have your mind set on the idea that the moon landing DID happen. I'm keeping an open mind and playing devils advocate. I dont know that it did or didnt happen. theres too much evidence suggesting either direction. It may very well have, but it may very well havent.
What about any other number of points brought up in the pictures someone posted. the ground below the LEM isnt disturbed regardless of the pressure of the rocket used to safely land. no dust in the picture of young jumping, but dust in the video. or how about the link someone provided where they showed multiple takes of a shot inside the shuttle?
I think you and pkcRAISTLIN should try to keep an open mind instead of trying to revert to personal attacks simply because I'm not agreeing with your viewpoint. |
|
|
|
|
