Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2011 14:38:28 GMT -6
Srinivas, ~hugs~ I wasn't upset at your post. Paulette's post got me to thinking about these things. Nobody said anything wrong. I'm just venting my frustrations with all of the things many many other people have said, not any one person in particular. ~hugs~ I'm just so sick and tired of hearing people say that white people are evil. Nobody here said it. I just hear it a lot and it makes me angry. I am not angry at you or paulette or anyone else here. I am angry with society. I have spoken to Indians on the telephone for customer service before. I always try to be nice and polite to them, although it can be very frustrating because of the language understanding problems which arise. A lot of people get very very frustrated with the language problems only. Our internet service provider for example, Hughes Net. Most of their customer service representatives are in India. My father would be talking on the phone with one of them (on speaker phone) and I often hear the frustration in my father's voice escalating, then I walk over and take the phone away from him and take over the conversation... lol. To prevent my father from getting angry at the poor man on the other end of the phone. I have done this three times... ~hugs~ I know it isn't your fault, but people get frustrated when they don't understand someone. It has nothing to do with your race, but some people are mean and stupid and say it is. ~hugs again~ I got into a fight on the phone with a guy who sounded like he was Eastern European. Russian or something. I was getting a plane ticket from an internet discount website and had a problem with my ticket. I finally got frustrated and told him, "I want to speak to someone who speaks English." He said, "I am speaking English!" I said, "I know you think you are, but I can't understand you at all. Please put on someone who I can understand!" I tried to be nice about it, but I was very very frustrated. I also had to deal with a Mexican lady once when Kmart didn't ship my order to Alaska. I couldn't understand her at all either. She kept apologizing and saying she was sorry that I couldn't understand her and I kept saying, "That's OK honey. It's alright. Don't worry about it, just talk a little slower, and I will talk a little slower too." It's very frustrating, and most people are not very patient... (my father for example) ~hugs~ No hard feelings? Sorry if you misunderstood my post honey... I just get riled up sometimes... I meant no offense to anyone. I'm just feeling offended myself. Offended by society. Offended by the media. Offended by university professors. Offended by almost everyone. By the way, back on subject, I know German people and French people who say that America did not land on the moon because they don't like Americans. That's why I made that post. They are biased against Americans so they don't believe we actually did what we did. They are jealous. I know they are. Even my favorite rock band, Rammstein, they wrote a song about "Amerika" and in the music video it showed the members of the band in a filming studio that looked like the moon landing. Apparently my favorite music group doesn't believe we did it. That makes me sad, but I still love their music. People hated the Romans too because they were the dominant culture of the world. I think that has something to do with the mentality other cultures have about America. People don't like being bossed around. That's why we have wars and revolutions. Eventually, everyone gets tired of it.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on May 6, 2011 19:20:45 GMT -6
I would like to get back to the moon conspiracy because I think this is a very interesting topic, especially since I am beating the stuffings out of the skeptics so far. Now I am going to punch a few more holes in their conspiracy theory because I found a few more flaws in that video. One of the skeptics said that the thing that convinced him the moon landing was a hoax was the fact that the foot of the Moon Lander did not have any dust on it. He claimed that when the lander came down it would have created a huge cloud of dust that would have billowed up and floated down on top of everything, including the foot of the lander. If the thing had landed on Earth he might have been correct, because on Earth there is this stuff called air that carries the dust particles aloft and floats them around. The Moon does not have any atmosphere or air so dust would not float at all. If any of it were kicked up by anything it would just fall right back down again. There would not be any cloud billowing or dust floating anywhere which means the foot of the lander would not have any dust on it. Therefor the fact that the foot of the lander did not have dust is convincing evidence that they were on the Moon. Another thing I would like to point out is about the flag. I said before that the only time the flag was flapping is when the astronauts were handling it. One of the things I did not mention is that in order to get the flag to stick out the way it did they put a wire at the top of the flag pole that stuck out sideways and allowed the flag to hang down. If the flag pole were twisted just the slightest bit the outer point of the wire would move a lot which would give sort of a whiplash effect to the rest of the flag. That is why the flag was flapping so much while they were moving it. It still doesn't move at all when they are not touching it though. Now I would like to talk about one of the few true mysteries of the conspiracy theorist's theory--the photographs. There are two things about the moon photos that cause the skeptics to question their authenticity. The first is that the photos are all very well centered and look like they were professionally taken in spite of the fact that the cameras were very difficult to operate while wearing the bulky space suits the astronauts wore. The skeptics claim that since the photos look so good it is conclusive evidence the astronauts could not possibly have taken them. What the skeptics fail to consider however is that the astronauts practiced with these things repeatedly while on Earth so they would be able to take good photos while on the Moon. Another thing that may have helped the quality of the photos is the way they were developed and processed. When the people who were processing the photos were making the prints they were probably cropping them to make them look as good as possible before making the prints. You don't think that NASA is going to spend billions of dollars to go to the moon just to come back with a bunch of lousy out of focus photos that showed half the astronauts head cutoff do you? They were probably trying to make them look as good as they could. I think this also explains the other mystery associated with the photos. The cameras that the astronauts were using had crosshairs etched into the lenses that would show up on every photo, yet on some of the photos the images actually appear to cover up the crosshairs. The skeptics claim that this is proof that the photos are hoaxes. Unfortunately, the skeptics have forgotten one of their primary skeptical arguments which is that there are always other possibilities. What the photos prove is that they were modified, not faked. But why would NASA modify moon photos? This was probably done while the photos were being developed also. It is a common practice in the advertising and entertainment industry to modify photos by airbrushing them in order to highlight or cover-up certain details. Any time you look at the cover photo on a magazine it probably has been modified in some way. The photos of the "UFO" from the Battle of LA that happened back in 1942 are a perfect example. Here is the photo that was originally taken. Here is what was actually published in the paper. Notice how the lights have been modified so that they appear wider and brighter. It makes the photo appear more dramatic. Since most photo developers are used to using these modification techniques while developing photos, and since NASA wanted the photos to look as good as possible, they probably did modify or airbrush some of the photos before releasing them to the public. Instead of being proof of a hoax it is more than likely evidence that NASA was trying to justify it's huge budget and make sure there were more moon missions in the future. Any other skeptical conspiracy theorist arguments for me to debunk?
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on May 6, 2011 22:59:58 GMT -6
Why can't I make those photos the size I want them to be?? Why won't this computer cooperate??
|
|
|
Post by lois on May 6, 2011 23:16:11 GMT -6
Looks like one of those flying buildings.. but it is in the print I'm sure. My imagination, but I do see it.
Just found this thread .. I for one believe we did go to the Moon.
|
|
|
Post by satansrini on May 7, 2011 3:38:23 GMT -6
No problem Lorelei! I think we are over it now Ok.. back to the topic, about multiple light sources, if you have multiple light sources usually the objects being hit by multiple light sources have more than one shadow. The pictures there, they have a single shadow in a different direction. Usually when there is Sun, Earthshine is not very dominant. Roughly like how you can't see moon in the mornings. So you don't have 2 light sources. Simply no competition with Sun. We are not taking planet Pluto. We are very close to Sun. Sometimes, moon can be closer to Sun than Earth (Lunar Eclipse). The Van Allen belt is another thing.. Regards, Srinivas
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on May 7, 2011 13:38:57 GMT -6
That's true what you said about multiple light sources having multiple shadows. If there were two sources of light powerful enough to cast a strong shadow than there would be two different shadows from each object, but there isn't. The photos only have one shadow coming from each object which means there could only be one light source. That pretty much defeats the skeptic's argument right there. If the moon pictures were filem on a stage using different light sources there would be multiple shadows. Since there is only one shadow from each object there can only be one strong light source (the sun). The difference in angles must just be an optical illusion. The other reason the skeptics were claiming there must be a second light source is because details were visible in the shadows even when the sun was directly in front of the camera. The skeptics were claiming that the shadows would have been completely black unless there were a second source of light to illuminate the details. This is why I originally suggested the Earth as the second source of light. While it is true that moonlight normally cannot compete with the light of the sun during the daytime you have to remember that the Earth is many times larger than the Moon so it would be much larger in the sky and reflect more light. However, after thinking about it some more I realized that the Earth probably doesn't have anything to do with it. There is another source of light that could have illuminated the details in the shadows, and that is the surface of the Moon itself. The Moon is made up of a very light-gray, almost white colored rock that reflects light very well. With the sun shining on the surface of the Moon there would have been enough light reflecting off of it to provide a secondary source of soft illumination...not one strong enough to produce shadows, but enough to bring out the details in the shadows. Proffessional photographers sometimes use white sheets or umbrellas to produce the same effect. Now let me do some research on this Van Allen Belt thingy and I will tackle it also.
|
|
|
Post by satansrini on May 8, 2011 3:52:14 GMT -6
Hey Sky!
How are you?
The photos only have one shadow coming from each object which means there could only be one light source. That pretty much defeats the skeptic's argument right there. If the moon pictures were filem on a stage using different light sources there would be multiple shadows. Since there is only one shadow from each object there can only be one strong light source (the sun). The difference in angles must just be an optical illusion.
The assumption here for the optical illusion is, that it is on the Moon and that Sun is the light source. The photos have one shadow for each object so there could be only one light source. Yes - One light source for each object or objects in the path of light positioned in a specific direction.
If you watched a cricket or in your case a baseball match in a stadium lit up with High Mast lights, you would observe that the players have about 4 shadows (when there are 4 light sources). Usually the length of each shadow is the same. This is because, the length of the shadow depends on the elevation or positioning of the light source. Since the high mast lights are positioned in various angles focusing to the middle of the ground the objects are hit by multiple light beams hence more shadows. In case of Sun, the source is so powerful, it covers half the planet. In the afternoon, our shadows are the shortest in the sunlight and longest during twilight.
I am not sure if there is any scope for optical illusion for a light source as powerful as the Sun. The light has to hit and object high elevation and that can't simply produce shadow's in mutually exclusive angles.
On the other hand, if I were to assume it has been shot on a set. I could use lights, place them in complimentary angles, the beams do not interfere with each other and hit the objects only in their path. Each light source covers a specific area and does not hit objects that are out of its area. Hence a single shadow but in mutually exclusive direction.
But why have so many multiple sources to create a video. Why not a single high mast light to take care of everything. With a high mast light, the light received a different parts of the area it covers is different. Like in a cricket ground, the centre of the pitch receives more light than the boundaries. So it gets tough to shoot. Sun on the other hand, keeps the area (however large for us - still small at astronomical levels). How do we accomplish that - a uniform visibility? - Multiple light sources covering smaller areas to create a uniformity at a larger scale.
So if I were to make an assumption that it was not shot on the Moon, different light sources are required and that also explains the shadows in different directions.
If the assumption is that it was shot on Moon, there is no need for another light source. Optical aberrations can be caused with finite light sources covering smaller areas than Sun whose angle and position with respect to the whole Moon is stable. The area is also too small for the shadows to be exclusive as in the photos.
I really did not and do not understand the Cross Hair argument they presented. Its like greek to me. Though you explained some in your previous post. I don't understand a thing!
There is another source of light that could have illuminated the details in the shadows, and that is the surface of the Moon itself. The Moon is made up of a very light-gray, almost white colored rock that reflects light very well. With the sun shining on the surface of the Moon there would have been enough light reflecting off of it to provide a secondary source of soft illumination...not one strong enough to produce shadows, but enough to bring out the details in the shadows.
I agree with this. Its quite possible that the reflective capabilities of Moon, owing to its composition and absence of atmosphere will be very bright. It is quite possible that the moon reflection has lit up the astronaut. The shadow can't be produced because, the reflection is caused by the surface itself which is from the bottom.
But one question I have is, if moon were to reflect the light of the Astronaut, why hasn't it lit up the Lander Module as well, in whose dark shadow the astronaut is? I know the astronaut is wearing white. But the moon reflection (which is from the surface at the bottom) is only lighting up the astronaut, even surroundings which are like inches away from him (the area of the Module darkened by the shadow) is not lit up at all and is quite dark. In the worst case, if not brigthening the module, such a lighting caused by reflection should negate the darking effect of the shadow to a certain extent don't you think?
Regards, Srinivas
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on May 9, 2011 19:31:36 GMT -6
I think I figured out the thing with the different angles of the shadows from one light source. There are two possibilities of how one light source could produce shadows that go at different angles.
One is the type of lense that the camera is using. If the camera is using a wide angle lense it has a tendency to distort the image just slightly so that things may appear slightly different than they are in real life. Also the settings of the camera such as focal length and aperture, as well as where the person is standing can also cause things to be slightly distorted.
Another possibility is that the uneven surface of the ground could change the direction that a shadow is pointing. The Moon's surface is covered with hills and gullies, it is not perfectly flat, and these dips and rises could effect how the shadows look to the camera. If you watch part 4 of the video close to the very end is an astronaut whose shadow is actually bent. It starts from his foot and goes sideways to the right but then it bends downward because there is a little dip in the ground right there. Two light sources could not have done that even if they were on a movie stage.
Now I'm going to work on the radiation belt thingy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2011 14:40:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by casper on May 10, 2011 16:33:20 GMT -6
If the astronauts didn't land on the moon then how did they pick up all of those moon rocks? Did the man in the moon throw them at us?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2011 16:56:16 GMT -6
Yep..that would be it ;D
|
|
|
Post by satansrini on May 14, 2011 1:45:25 GMT -6
Ok. I will talk about other things later... If the astronauts didn't land on the moon then how did they pick up all of those moon rocks? Did the man in the moon throw them at us? You don't have to land on the moon to get samples from there. Unmanned probes can do that for you! Regards, Srinivas
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2011 3:07:25 GMT -6
Ok. I will talk about other things later... If the astronauts didn't land on the moon then how did they pick up all of those moon rocks? Did the man in the moon throw them at us? You don't have to land on the moon to get samples from there. Unmanned probes can do that for you! Regards, Srinivas I'm pretty sure they didn't have robots who were advanced enough during that time period to get moon rocks. The computer on the first lander had the calculating power of what is now a basic pocket calculator, not a scientific one. I'm pretty sure people had to have brought the rocks back way back then.
|
|
|
Post by satansrini on May 14, 2011 3:33:30 GMT -6
[ I'm pretty sure they didn't have robots who were advanced enough during that time period to get moon rocks. The computer on the first lander had the calculating power of what is now a basic pocket calculator, not a scientific one. I'm pretty sure people had to have brought the rocks back way back then. True.. were the rocks put on public exhibition after the first 'manned' lunar mission? There were many subsequent missions after that.. unmanned. How can we really date a rock from moon on Earth time? As in, you can never accurately say.. "this rock was here from 1969 or something like that".. If they can bluff that they landed on moon, bluffing about a rock is not a big thing ;D I have not yet established that they really went to moon. I would love that to be true and the conspiracy to be totally false though. But thats not for me to 'believe'. Regards, Srinivas
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on May 14, 2011 5:40:39 GMT -6
Robot probes might be able to pick up rocks but they can't bring them back. As far as I know no probe that we have ever sent out has come back. They are not designed like that.
As far as whether or not we landed on the Moon that video we watched was made back in 2001 and since then several different spacecraft have been sent up by several different countries that have confirmed and photographed the lunar landers that are still sitting at each of the landing sites. There wouldn't be lunar landers there if somebody didn't land in them.
I really don't see any evidence that we did not go to the moon. Jo and I have pretty much debunked every one of the conspiracy theorists conspiracy theories. They are going to have to come up with some better ones than that.
|
|
|
Post by satansrini on May 15, 2011 4:42:41 GMT -6
Robot probes might be able to pick up rocks but they can't bring them back. As far as I know no probe that we have ever sent out has come back. They are not designed like that. As far as whether or not we landed on the Moon that video we watched was made back in 2001 and since then several different spacecraft have been sent up by several different countries that have confirmed and photographed the lunar landers that are still sitting at each of the landing sites. There wouldn't be lunar landers there if somebody didn't land in them. I really don't see any evidence that we did not go to the moon. Jo and I have pretty much debunked every one of the conspiracy theorists conspiracy theories. They are going to have to come up with some better ones than that. Ok.. to start with, to tell you the truth the word 'debunk' has always left me pretty confused. I just can't seem to get my head around the word!! What you both have presented is an alternate explanation and a good one at that. I am still looking at possibilities - saying the aberrations 'could have' taken place with the camera, lenses and such. Photography is another thing that I don't understand much. I guess, I have to spend more time that what I generally do when I look at the pictures. The best i can do is I can make out whats been doctored using tools like photoshop! Otherwise I am quite poor. With the Van Allen, I think i need to brush up my Engg. Math and Physics to a certain extent to really be able to see what it is. I will have to carefully examine the extent of radiation belt, its densities, patterns, behaviors. The distance (accurate) traveled, speed at which traveled, inclination - relative & such. Since I have lost touch with the subject, I think it will take me a while to figure out. I think I should do the math and research myself to convince myself that we landed on the Moon. As of now, I think there is much knowledge I have to gain and brush up some skills that have long been dormant!! And I will report my findings here - no promises on time though. You might understand it will take some time. I think, I am very much convinced - as long as others have photographed the landers in the missions since 2001 - and they are really made public.. I think I will shut up and be happy we landed on the moon regards, Srinivas
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 17:20:00 GMT -6
I think I figured out the thing with the different angles of the shadows from one light source. There are two possibilities of how one light source could produce shadows that go at different angles. . Another possibility is that the uneven surface of the ground could change the direction that a shadow is pointing. The Moon's surface is covered with hills and gullies, it is not perfectly flat, and these dips and rises could effect how the shadows look to the camera. If you watch part 4 of the video close to the very end is an astronaut whose shadow is actually bent. It starts from his foot and goes sideways to the right but then it bends downward because there is a little dip in the ground right there. Two light sources could not have done that even if they were on a movie stage. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you hit the nail on the head with that skywalker !!! I recently watched the tv series "myth busters", and they set up a mock moon surface to explain the shadow effects mentioned in the conspiracy theorys . they first used a level surface and the shadows were straight and lined up with the light source, but when the terrain was changed adding humps and low lying areas, the shadows appeared to come from different angles which explained it in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on May 20, 2011 17:47:09 GMT -6
It's good to know the old brain cells are still working.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 18:21:59 GMT -6
back in 2001,I took my family to florida and one of the places we went was Kennedy space center . While there, we took the walk around the memorial section which was dedicated to all the astronauts lives which were lost .I couldnt help but have that heavy feeling in my chest as I stood there and seen all the names on the board, and the honor I felt towards those who sacrificed their lives for space exploration . I can understand to a point why people dont believe everything the govt. says for obvious reasons , but not everything is a conspiracy . Not only was this a huge accomplishment for the U.S., but for all mankind . It unfortunately was made with sacrifices .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2011 18:27:04 GMT -6
It's good to know the old brain cells are still working. lol ;D mine too, but not like they use to ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 9:43:56 GMT -6
I can actually hear mine grinding and sending smoke out of my ears..sigh.
|
|