What is Digg?60 Comments
- taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The Apollo mission was about the moon, not about mars.
- z00k, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Since they couldn't afford red paint for the set.
- mhaluza, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10 I find it amazing that you actually think something like the moon landing is a hoax. How can you be so naive? If you do some research you will find that all the "evidence" for a fake landing such as weird shadows, lights, angles, and other seemingly odd things are ALL accounted for.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9As I said previously, you're reading from the wrong sites. Try again:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
The problem with many of the authors of these kinds of web sites is that they often know as much about science and physics as you do - which is clearly nothing.
The best thing to try is to stop *wanting* to believe in conspiracies - and instead educate yourself a little in some basic (and real) science - and then engage in some critical thinking. Better still, stop taking your information from web sites and TV shows to begin with - and get into a classroom and learn some science. That is the only way you will prevent yourself from appearing so uninformed and uneducated in the future.
However I doubt you will do that - as (as with most conspiracy type theorists) you are likely to simply make the assumption that everyone is as ignorant and uniformed as you are - and hence all of your assumptions must be correct. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You see you won't be convinced. Nothing will convince you. Not taking you there, not showing you the sites, not even what ARE solid scientific arguments, nothing.
The difference between you and me is that you WANT to believe in hoaxes and conspiracies - and that your brain is hardwired to make you think and behave that way.
As for your video link, that guy is a total creep. If I had a loon like that baring up on my shoulder who looked like he might be threatening me or my family, I would have stomped on his goddamn head until he agreed to leave me alone - so as far as I can see he got off pretty lightly.
There are places for people like that (and for people like you possibly too) but unfortunately we don't have the resources, the time or the money to accommodate them all.
You see the thing is I could try and engage with you - I could very probably provide you with excellent documented counter arguments to every objection you have - but just like previous arguments, you are likely to simply discount them out of hand, without giving them any serious consideration at all - and without having any real understanding of the scientific merits behind them.
You claim you have a 'better' than high school preception of science. Well I for one remain a skeptic - on that count at least.
So I think I will not try to argue with you, because all you will do is replace any argument I or anyone makes with your own opinion. And that it seems (as in all such cases) is more than sufficient for you. - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That article just lists the locations of the junk, that doesn't mean you can see it. Even the Hubble can't resolve objects smaller than 27 meters across on the Moon.
- Daedalus17, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5http://www.clavius.org/
STFU - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Oh comeon... those images were taken from a satellite in close Mars orbit, with much higher resolution capabilities than Hubble, or any Earth based telescope (down to something like 1 meter). (Why else do you think they send satellites to be in such close orbit to begin with?)
Do you really think NASA are going to waste millions and millions on sending a similar satellite to the moon to photograph the Apollo landing sites, simply in order to satisfy a bunch of kooks and loons - who would probably just say that any subsequent evidence was fake too anyway? - BeauXdidLeigH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Likely covered in some of the prior links...
Space junk?
I remember them leaving this multi-prism reflector, strategically aimed back toward AMES in Menlo Park.
They tried, for the better part of a year to target that reflector with a laser beam.
I was actually at the Exploratorium, or Chabot College, or somewhere, when I witnessed them finally, successfully achieving a return path.
Using reflection times, and beam dissipation, they were able to determine an extremely precise (for the era) distance between our Earth and la Luna.
Kinda cool piece of "moon junk". - rbowes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0238.shtml
Not a pic, but an explanation of why there isn't one and when there should be one.
oops, i got beaten to it - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Mmm I'm not sure what your link 'proves'. Certainly no one at NASA is saying that it isn't possible. Nor however are they saying that it is easy either - nor are they saying that it was easy in 1969. Some of the finest engineering and scientific minds of our age were applied to this task - as well as 1/6 the entire GDP of the United states of America at this time. (Which even then was no small amount). So it certainly wasn't cheap. nor was it easy, nor was it risk, or error free.
Can I provide an explanation of the Apollo 1 fire? Sure, why not:
The fire is believed to have been caused by a spark somewhere in the capsule's 50 km (31 miles) of wiring. Due to the pure oxygen inside the capsule (which was at a pressure of 15 psi or 100 kPa), the fire was quickly out of control. The Apollo 204 Review Board determined that a silver-plated copper wire running through an environmental control unit near the command module pilot's couch had become stripped of its insulation and abraded by repeated opening and closing of an associated access door. This weak point in the wiring also happened to pass near a junction in an ethylene glycol/water cooling line, which had developed a leak. The electrolysis of ethylene glycol solution with the anode made of silver resulted in a violent exothermic reaction that ignited the ethylene glycol mixture, which in turn was able to burn in the atmosphere of pure pressurized oxygen. [3] A similar March 1961 incident had previously claimed the life of Soviet cosmonaut trainee Valentin Bondarenko when a fire started in the pure oxygen atmosphere in the isolation chamber he had been occupying, a calamity the USSR had, for years, concealed from the public. The NASA investigation found that a bar of aluminum can burn like wood in a pure oxygen atmosphere. It also found substandard wiring in the craft and a missing socket wrench that was ruled out as the fire's cause. Many items on board were flammable, and flammable Velcro had been applied to the walls of the craft to secure items in weightless conditions.
The fire spread quickly and within seconds was out of control. As a result of toxic smoke and malfunctioning gas masks, ground crew needed five minutes to open the hatch and suppress the flames. The fire had melted the astronauts' space suits and the air lines which connected them to the capsule's life support systems. Grissom's and White's suits were found to have fused together. It was evident from how the bodies lay that they had tried to get out, but they never had a chance. Ed White, who was supposed to open the hatch, was partway out of his harness and had apparently made an effort to escape. The procedure would have had Grissom lower White's headrest, and White proceed to unlatch over 12 bolts to release the hatch. Indeed, even if he were to accomplish that, the internal pressure had risen so high that the inward-opening hatch could not have been opened. Chaffee's job was to begin shutting down the spacecraft and maintain communications with ground control. He was found dead still strapped into his right hand seat. Only 17 seconds from the first call of "Fire!", all three were dead.
According to the Report of the Apollo 204 Review Board — Appendix D Panel 11, (link provided below), Grissom suffered third degree burns on 36% of his body (1st, 2nd and 3rd degree burns covered 60% of his body) and his spacesuit was 70% destroyed. White suffered third degree burns on 40% of his body (1st, 2nd and 3rd degree burns covered 48% of his body) and his spacesuit was 25% destroyed. Chaffee suffered third degree burns on 23% of his body (1st, 2nd and 3rd degree burns covered 29% of his body) and his spacesuit was 15% destroyed. However, it was later confirmed (by an independent coroner's report) that the crew had actually died of smoke inhalation rather than burns.
The company that produced the command module, North American Aviation, had originally suggested that the hatch open outward and be able to open with explosive bolts in case of emergency. They had also suggested that the atmosphere be an oxygen/nitrogen mixture, like on the earth's surface. NASA didn't agree, arguing that the hatch could be accidentally opened (this is what caused Liberty Bell 7 — ironically, piloted by Grissom — to sink into the ocean during splashdown recovery operations; Grissom himself argued that the hatch should be stronger, more secure, and harder to open), and that if too much nitrogen were released into the atmosphere, the astronauts would pass out and then die. They also argued that since a pure oxygen atmosphere was used safely in Mercury and Gemini, it should be safe to use for Apollo. Furthermore, such a design saved weight. After the fire, Apollo was grounded pending a redesign, with the following results:
* The atmosphere would not be pressurized to 2 lbf/in² (14 kPa) above atmospheric pressure. It would consist of 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen at sea-level pressure at launch, lowering to 5 kPa of pressure during launch, and gradually changing over to 100% oxygen during the first 24 hours of the trans-lunar coast.
* The hatch would open outward, and be operable in less than ten seconds.
* Flammable materials in the cabin were replaced with self-extinguishing materials.
* Plumbing and wiring were covered with protective insulation.
* 1,407 wiring problems were corrected.
* Nylon suits were replaced with coated glass fabric suits, which are much more difficult to ignite.
The wiring improvements proved crucial two years later during the Apollo 13 flight; condensation that accumulated for four days during shut-down of the command module did not cause any short-outs when powered up just prior to re-entry
Link:.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19820066931_1982066931.pdf
I think also you will find that the families of the Astronauts who died are already well aware of this explanation - and that on the whole the fully accept it and are entirely satisfied with it. Several subsequent reviews by independent review panels and scientific/engineering bodies (i.e. organisations that in other words had no connection to NASA, or the government whatsoever) also confirmed these results - so I think you will find that some of the greatest minds in aeronautics and space flight engineering have already considered these issues in great detail and have found no discrepancies whatsoever. Moreover the subsequent changes and design/.engineering improvements that were made to the command modules as the result of the investigation into the fire are also very well documented - and can be easily obtained from the official NASA web site - where all of the other official data, detailing the engineering specifications of the command module - and a detailed scientific analysis of the cause of the fire can also be obtained. The originals can also be accessed upon request via the official NASA archives too - so rather than just some half hearted web link (given that there was no WWW in 1967/1969) you actually can go there and read these documents for yourself. (Or request a physical copy, via the national archives).
"If my English was good enough i could talk about MATLAB and give you some lessons, or maybe i could provide you some e-learning lessons on MATLAB, MIT lessons is that OK with you?"
Sure that's perfectly OK with me. I don't think I need any "MATLAB" lessons however, as I don't think this is relevant to the question. Just some basic pen and paper calculations showing your reasoning and your understanding of the physics behind your arguments will do. Math's is a pretty universal language - you don't need good english to speak it. I find it odd though that you argue that you can use MATLAB (or other modelling software) to 'prove' your assertions - and then you claim that this is not possible, because you could use this software to conform to any variables that you might wish - regardless of whether or not they were 'real'. Well that is why I asked you to provide the reasoning behind your modelling assumptions too - because physics is not something that it is easy to fake - and like mathematics, physics is pretty much a universal language too.
In any case, as I have said many times now, if you are so supremely confident in your assertions, the opportunity exists for you to make what should be some pretty easy money. Let's see a pen and paper break down and your mathematical workings that have led you to the assumption that the video you pointed to was fake - and also a mathematical proof of how you think the lunar dust should have behaved under these conditions - and providing they can be independently verified (which I have said, is really quite easy to do) I will pay you $10,000.
You clearly appear to believe that you have what would amount to quite spectacular proof that the moon landings were faked. So I say fine, no problem, let us see this proof - let us have it checked by someone (or several people if you prefer) who know a great deal about these topics and who are entirely impartial (who are not associated with NASA or any government agency in any way - and who's reputation it would be impossible to refute - and who will examine the data you say you have purely on it's merits alone) and let us see what the outcome is.
If you are right, not only will you have proved me and everyone here wrong and earned $10,000 in the process - you will also have conclusively proved for once and for all that the moon landings really were faked - and you may well become a true hero and probably a very famous person in the process.
Again though, you also have the alternative option of admitting you have no knowledge of these matters, no real scientific, or engineering background and insufficient grasp of even the basic mathematics required to even attempt to prove any of your assertions. Or in other words, you could just admit that you are making up your conspiracy theory based on zero understanding of any of scientific principals involved - and that essentially the only reason you believe this to be true is because you have decided to say that it is true.
Those as I see it are your two options. It should be a relatively simple choice for you to make. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Of course the other alternative is that you could simply just admit for once and for all, that you haven't got the slightest clue what you are talking about.
I confess that to my eyes this would probably seem like the most sensible approach. - xelloss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You should really watch the "From the Earth to the Moon" series it tells the story of how everything came to be with the space program. It would be hard to fake something because so much work had to be done to do this.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I am happy with whatever proof you wish to submit. As I said however, you must do so properly. You appear to know a few mathematical buzzwords - but I find your application of them here more than a little odd.
Submit a full written formal proof to the email address I supplied and I will present you with a list of referees and their credentials - and you can select from this list on your own and I will submit your work to them - and I will then offer you their full response. The people I am referring to are fully qualified engineers, scientists, physicists, geologists and planetary scientists (I work in quite a large and famous university, so I know many people who work in these fields), so it would be very difficult to refute their opinion on these topics. (Unless of course you were utterly arrogant and/or self delusional).
As for all of this talk of 'Nazis' and whatnot, let's just keep this meaningless Internet conspiracy nonsense and politics out of it and just stick to the science. You would almost certainly sound like less of a raving lunatic if you were capable of simply sticking to the cold hard raw data.
As I have said many times, the opportunity for you is there, you can prove me and everyone else wrong, earn a lot of money for what you appear to feel is an easily provable and obvious reality - and in the process, you stand the prospect of becoming a true hero of not just of Digg, but of all of the Internet and also of claiming a real place in human history as the person who finally exposed the Apollo moon missions as a blatant and obvious fraud. That is really quite a prize!!! Why would you not wish to accept it? - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lol I am already offering you $10,000 in all seriousness my friend. I think I can handle a little bit of MATLAB (or MATHCAD for that matter) if you feel this will enable you to prove your point. (Although why you would need these to do fairly basic pen and paper maths and physics is beyond me). So go ahead, give it a shot. Let's see some kind of simulation, or reasoning of how you think these things work in the real world. I know of plenty of people, both physicists and engineers - and a few mathematicians too - who would be only too happy to provide an independant review of your work. (And in case you are concerned that they might not be independant, this is largely what they do for a living in that they review papers submitted by serious scientists and graduates all of the time).
If your work holds any water at all, they will either confirm or refute it for you. The bottom line is you have a golden opportunity to prove me and everyone here completely wrong and obtain revenge for what you clearly feel is a form of public humiliation - and to earn $10,000 in the process. If you are so supremely confident of your abilities and of your reasoning, why not take it? If you are so utterly comvinced that you are correct, then it should be nothing more difficult than producing your proofs and reaching out and taking the money. It would be the easiest $10,000 you ever earned.
In case you think I am not serious, feel free to email me at quanta67 AT yahoo.com - and we can see how serious I am.
Somehow though I doubt very much that I will be hearing from you any time soon.
"Do you think that going to the Moon is simple and miracles like Apollo Missions happen all the time, NO ACCIDENTS, flawless."
There were several accidents. Some astronauts even died - or perhaps you have never heard of Apollo 1 or Apollo 13. Even the initial Apollo 11 mission was a near disaster.
"Science makes you to be IGNORANT, that's the true nature of it."
Funny, I always imagined that it was the lack of understanding of science topics that made people ignorant. But thanks for correcting me nonetheless.
Anyway... as I said, my offer is on the table. If you think your reasoning can stand up to scientific and critical scrutiny - now is your chance to make some very easy money - and to prove yourself and your intellect to be superior to all of the people here who have doubted your word. I have no fear, so why should you? - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2OK, what do you mean that 'they shouldn't stop'? If I was to take a guess, you believe that the dust should travel much further, am I correct?
What would make you form that assumption?
For a start, the buggy wasn't traveling that fast - perhaps only a few kmh - it only looks fast against the comparatively empty background. Second you have things the wrong way round - on Earth the dust would have traveled much further due to the atmosphere - since it is the atmosphere that is responsible for moving most of the dust on earth that we see around. The dust literally 'floats in the air' - and without the air it is only able to sustain it's flight for much shorter periods of time. So for example if you throw a handful of powdered chalk up in the air in a room that is a vacuum, it will fall at the same rate as anything else falls, whether it is a particle of dust, a hammer, or a feather - all of these will rise and fall in accordance with newtons laws of force and motion.
You see you are making the assumption that the conditions you view on the moon are the same as the ones that you would experience here on earth. They are not the same at all. The even though the buggy is traveling relatively slowly, it is still capable of throwing up a lot of dust (since it takes proportionally less energy to do so). However due to the lack of air - and the relatively low amounts of energy imbued within the dust particles by the buggy wheels, the dust doesn't actually travel very far - and indeed after it looses this energy it will appear (as you can clearly see in the video) to suddenly stop in mid air and to begin to rapidly descend to the ground. (Although the dust still travels six times farther on the moon than it would have on earth). It is simply a case of a basic calculation that takes in the speed of the wheels, the energy bestowed by the wheels on the dust particles and the rate of decent of these particles according to Newton's universal laws of force, motion and also gravitation.
I agree with you that this does look odd. But only odd in the sense that it is clear that the dust is not behaving 'normally' (or at least not in the way that we would expect it to behave here on Earth). On Earth you might expect the dust to travel farther - but on the moon with no atmosphere the dust particles only have the energy from the buggy wheels (no wind or anything like this) to enable them to travel any distance - and since this energy is not great and there is no air to assist them, the particles seem only to travel a short distance before falling suddenly to the ground.
Again this explanation involves some quite basic physics - but I am certain like your other chums that you will probably just opt to ignore it. However if you are still confused, perhaps you might like to try formulating some examples by yourself, showing the speed of the buggy, the amount of energy applied by the wheels on the lunar dust, the spread of dust as a result of this interaction and then apply Newton's equations to derive a likely outcome?
I am all but certain that with very little difficulty you will quickly find that the dust pretty much falls exactly where you would expect it to under the conditions in which it was operating - which in this case very clearly is the moon.
Or perhaps you do not understand Newton's laws - in which case if I were you I would quite safely assume that it was likely that I didn't have the slightest clue what I was talking about. - rageguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We have movies of the astronauts walking on the moon, if thats not enough for them then it wouldnt matter if we got images of the landing sites with a telescope, they would call fake. Hell, if we made a magic space ship tomorrow that could take the skeptics there to actually see the landing area they would just say that NASA just went there a few weeks before and set the scence.
After all, according to them, all images and movies are fakable and completely indicernable to reality, any evidence such as rocks and cosmic ray damage can be faked by those scientists dudes, the laser ranging reflector was placed by robots.
You cant convince these people. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Again show us you science and your mathematics you lame brained oaf...
There are plenty of places you can link to.
If you think Mathlab can help you look any less intelligent and any less informed than you already do, then feel free to go right ahead and use it. My betting however is that you will try to cover your embarrasment by simply being abusive to everyone, rather than attempting to deal with the issues.
You want to prove us all wrong? Then why be shy? Feel free... Go right ahead and do it. Insulting everyone does not in any way make you any more correct.
Better still I dare you to try to recreate the experiment here on Earth by tossing similar material of equal density into the air and observing the outcome.
I assure you that it will look nothing like what is seen in this video.
You simply cannot recreate those conditions here on Earth. I will happily and confidently offer you (or anyone) a $10,000 reward if you can recreate the exact outcome seen in this video and produce the science and engineering to back up your claim - and have this verified by an independent scientific body (or engineering body if you prefer).
It is entirely up to you if you wish to accept this challenge. However I assure you in advance that I already know that my money is really quite safe. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Again show us you science and your mathematics you lame brained oaf...
There are plenty of places you can link to.
You want to prove us all wrong? Then why be shy? Feel free... Go right ahead and do it.
Better still I dare you to try to recreate the experiment here on Earth by tossing similar material of equal density material into the air and observing the outcome.
I assure you that it will look nothing like what is seen in this video.
You simply cannot recreate those conditions here on Earth. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Anyway before you embarrass yourself even more - as it is plain to everyone and their dog that you are lying and that you are indeed no engineer at all - and are likely to be utterly incapable of producing (on your own) any useful mathematical workings - I suppose the kind thing to do is to end your agony prematurely and to let you know that you have the whole thing so wrong, that you even have the reasoning behind the hoax theories the wrong way round too.
If you watch the video you posted, you can clearly see that the the dust very much does travel in a pretty much perfect parabolic arc (this is what the Astronaut refers to as a 'rooster's tail' which is Astronaut slang for a parabola) and rapidly falls back down to the surface - just as you would expect in a vacuum. It looks nothing like the way dust behaves here on earth. It appears that you are simply unaware of even what a parabola is. You just try getting fine dust to suddenly stop in mid air like this and to drop so suddenly to the ground.. This is only possible in a vacuum. Once again you are applying your earth like logic where plainly this kind of thinking does not apply. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today! We simply cannot build vacuums that large - indeed even with our most advanced technology we struggle to maintain vacuums of only a few meters in diameter. If anything the video you posted is an excellent demonstration that the video very much was shot in the environment of a vacuum. - brianbennett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It is quite amusing how those pictures so closely resemble old sci fi comics.
I can only feel sorry for you moon hoax people and hope you don't reproduce. Beyond all the funny pictures, the moon dust and all that *****, how could tens of thousands of people involved in the Apollo program keep quiet without one exception all these years? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It's a very good question, 'can we see any human-placed objects on the moon'. The answer is no, earth-based telescopes (and the Hubble) do not have the resolving ability to see such small (dune buggy and a camper) things so far away.
Here's a link which tries to explain why:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134
Yet, for all that, there must be a way to see the exact location and what is or is not there. If you have been paying attention to astronomy, you have likely seen the pictures of the Mars Rover, no bigger than a Bulldog, roving around on Mars.
Oh, you haven't seen it? Here you go:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061009.html
I second the challenge, show me the lunar rover. - BillDoE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Anyone that thinks the moon landing was a fake need only a powerful telescope to see the ***** they left up there. Maybe go back to grade school while you're at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2wow. one of the operational diagrams is of nasa's imagined role in the government as being closely tied to the DOD and placed well in power and priority over the military branches. it's awesome to know that they were thinking of space exploration in this manner back then. also, it seems they thought they should have an orbiting space facility before going to the moon. well, we got there 3 years later.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Anyway just in case you can't be assed to read that link, just as you clearly couldn't be assed to read the previous link, here are the two most pertinent answers to your "most shocking visual evidence" that appears to have convinced you so comprehensively that the Apollo missions were faked. No dust and no crater?
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crater
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#dust
You see my boy, a little high school science really can go a long, long way.... - achoo5000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3don't be lazy.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Lander kicked up plenty of dust when it landed. I remember from watching it live. Actually, it's more likely I remember from seeing the recording of the landing many times since, but I did see the whole thing live.
- NiX0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've so got a kids book with all those pictures in it.
Awesome :) - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lol, now you are just using deflection - trying to detract and run away from the issue at hand. I have presented you with the opportunity of a lifetime - not only to make a lot of money and prove everyone wrong - but to become extremely famous in the process. Clearly however this is not in your capacity at all (since my malbox remains inexplicably empty) and you are as I have asserted all along, nothing more than a big fat fake and a blatant charlatan.
"Explain to all of us, based on physics and mathematics, what is wrong with this foto."
That is certainly a very deliberate and leading question. Perhaps I don't see anything 'wrong' with this image at all. Perhaps what I see is a photograph taken under the very out of the ordinary and 'out of common human experience' conditions of the moon.
Why not instead say what you feel is wrong with it - and I will do my best to explain why you are likely to be wrong here too?
I will be happy to use maths and physics to explain any inconsistencies that you think you might have uncovered in this image to you - although, since you have already demonstrated that you really probably have a very poor perception of these, I am not certain how much of a worthwhile investment of my effort this would be - as you are likely to simply discount these and instead fall back on your own innate ignorance of these topics and use this ignorance as an excuse to simply discount any science that I present you with..
But anyway, go on, give it your best shot. Let us see what other misconceptions of physics and science you can come up with to justify the claims you no doubt have in store for this particular image. - kurtu5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@pytro I know engineer and you are not an engineer.
A scientist perhaps would have insisted on ideal ballistic trajectories. An engineer would have never said such a thing; they tend to think of more than one variable at a time.
An engineer would have realized that there would be a stagnation column of falling dust for each rooster tail. See, some of the dust does indeed fall on an ideal arc, and then it starts falling, dust behind it is getting more and more torqued by the wheel as it continues slipping in the terrain. This new faster dust smacks into the falling column and starts piling up and increasing the density of the column, which stops more dust. Then the wheel starts to bite the terrain again and any new dust doesn't have enough energy to reach the column and simply fills in the space behind the wheel and the rapidly dying column.
Just like the ***** video. Now go get a brain moran. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You wanna tell us what parts you find so hard to believe?
In case you don't have the balls to face the truth, here is an answer to one of the more common misconceptions that crazy moon conspirators like you often make:
http://digg.com/space/Apollo_TV_Tapes_The_Search_Continues
There are equally compelling answers to virtually every other crapot theory out there that you might care to come up with.
You just need to read around a bit more, rather than taking your info from these wako nutjub loon web sites, the authors of whom have often very obviously never been near a science class in their lives. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My fat hairy ass you're an engineer... Let us see the science and the caclulations that have led you to this assumption. Then we will see who is the enginer and who is not.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You have not demonstrated the truth, despite having been given multiple opportunities to do so.
So far all you have offered is your own opinion - and clearly your 'opinion' does not equate to science.
You appear to have simply 'divined' that the moon landings were not possible - like some kind of magician. But you have still offered no evidence whatsoever. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK which specific hoax mythology are you referring to in this instance?
It isn't clear from your statement. Provide a link. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyway, just in case you miss it, I seriously advise that you actually go out and study the world and how it works (and perhaps set out your own experiment like the one in the photo above if you wish - and photograph the results) and I also advise that you put some effort into studying maths and physics, instead of walking about with your head up your ass and making assumptions based only on what you see there - as this is clearly have done to date, as in all scincerity a genuine study of these topics will truly open your eyes and will help you see how many of the things you assume to be fantastic and impossible - are in fact often extremely mundane, easy to understand and can quite often be very simple and possible to do. Just as in this case, where you made an absurd claim that something was physically impossible based on no evidence (ie a single object casting two separate shadows from one light source - as in the second image above very much is possible) if you had actually ever really LOOKED at the world you live in, you would quickly realise how silly and uninformed some - if not all - of the assumptions you are making truly are.
Just because you have no practical conception or understanding of these topics - and have never taken the time or invested the effort to study them, does not mean that no answers exist - or that indeed they are in any way 'impossible.' - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lol you conspiracy theorists are so predictable - if only in you willingness to proclaim to the world the true extent of your personal ignorance. This is claim that the multiple/converging shadows are in fact caused by studio lighting, either by a light source which is relatively close and/or by multiple light sources, is it not?
The truth is that converging shadows are a well-know optical phenomena in photography. There is nothing mysterious about at all it, in fact you can easily replicate this effect yourself as per the examples below:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/raid517/converging-shadows-apollo.jpg
In this image of a particular Apollo mission it clearly appears to show that the shadows are not parallel, as highlighted by the added red lines.
However this photo, taken by an ordinary every day Fujifilm camera using only the Sun as a light source, it clearly shows how any camera will produce the same effect.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/raid517/converging-shadows-dave2.jpg
Photography is a hobby of one of mine my friend - and this is a basic principal of optics.
So again you fail miserably to demonstrate anything of any significance - other that how utterly and completely uniformed and ignorant you truly are. You clearly know nothing of maths, of physics - and now you have offered a supreme demonstration that you know nothing of optics either.
Anyway, that was really too easy. What I wonder do you have next? Perhaps I can prolong your agony a little longer? - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What you want more? Are we back to arguing about converging shadows - or can you now admit that you were utterly and comprehensively wrong on this point too?
Sorry it is night where I am so I couldn't take the photos for you. But again, I invite you to take some photos for yourself and demonstrate whether it really is impossible in fact to have multiple/converging shadows from the same source. If you had ever held a camera in your hands before you would know that this is simply an artifact of the way 2D images work. That does not mean that the shadows do in fact converge in reality - as is shown in the previous images, a simple line analysis will reveal that this is often purely an optical illusion.
I can keep this up for as long as you are willing to play - it is of no consequence to me - and in any case I am still waiting for you to accept my offer. (I guess some people are just a glutton for punishment). I would even be willing to extend my offer if you could provide a solid scientific grounding and a 'proof' (as in a scientifically testable proof) of any of the major assertions that the moon hoax conspirators commonly make.
Why engage in these silly debates when there are plenty of excellent mathematical, engineering and physics based methodologies, that would allow at least a large proportion of these assertions to be scientifically tested?
There is certainly plenty of solid maths and engineering that supports the premise and validity of the moon landings - but virtually no real science at all that supports the assertions made by any of the moon hoaxers.
Why exactly is this the case? Or is it acceptable to you that you should be allowed to dismiss all of science (and assume that science and all the scientists in the world are conspiring against you too) and instead opt to base your assertions on nothing more than your own uninformed opinions? - pytro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0LOL GAME OVER 4 ME,
http://www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoax/converging-shadows.html.
Best Regards,
ΞSЗЯЯÆΞ ™ © - pytro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0KISS (deep it simple stupid) expression is like the Bible to you.
You shouldn't upload that photos, provide your scientific source instead.
http://www.dave.co.nz/
" Unfortunately it's a bit meagre, partly because I'm too lazy to write more stories and partly because so many of my stories would incriminate so many people that I can't really publish them. "
" I did some cool stuff when I was a teenager but most of the time I was just a jerk. Sooner or later I'll publish all the miserable details. " - pytro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If you had actually ever really LOOKED at the world you live in, you would quickly realize how silly and uninformed some - if not all - of the assumptions you are making truly are.
No buddy, you can't handle the truth that's all. Peace. - pytro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"I have presented you with the opportunity of a lifetime - not only to make a lot of money and prove everyone wrong - but to become extremely famous in the process."
Present yourself, and i'll be Honor to bring your scientists friends some light in your neuronal nets, creating a new quantic synapse's provided by my glorious divine input.
"I will be happy to use maths and physics to explain any inconsistencies that you think you might have uncovered in this image to you - although, since you have already demonstrated that you really probably have a very poor perception of these"
You are really poor in terms of pure abstraction and critical analysis. you don't see because your brain can not see, well the truth is there is converging shadows lol, with one light source millions miles away, that's impossible, unless there's more than one light source. That's Physics an mathematics, very very basic... how could you understand anything about MATLAB. I have presented you with the opportunity of a lifetime, try to get some e-learning lessons because that's a chance of becoming more intelligent, and educate your friends too. It's FREE. - pytro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Explain to all of us, based on physics and mathematics, what is wrong with this foto:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/as12-47-6984-92.jpg - pytro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Good Morning, 1st of all thanks for trying to explain, but that explanation isn't good enough for the family, and doesn't believe that( is it conspiracy? nope, you can ask the family personally).
So Links to NASA reports about that accident, doesn't mean anything.
I'm wondering if you are somekind of "moderator" of Digg? (just wondering, because if you are, i'm really loving it :P ).
What makes it so hard, not to believe it was faked brother? I find that really annoying, but that's fine.
" Let's see a pen and paper break down and your mathematical workings that have led you to the assumption that the video you pointed to was fake - and also a mathematical proof of how you think the lunar dust should have behaved under these conditions - and providing they can be independently verified (which I have said, is really quite easy to do) I will pay you $10,000. "
My mathematical skills permit describe in time domain or frequency domain, that kind of patterns how would you prefer? What is easier for you, discrete or continuous? Can i explain it by Propertie 3 of Auto-correlation function? (just because Math is universal, i think you can understand, and be true to me please, because i really want to explain it, i think you deserve that, IMO), i mean the 1st lesson i must simulate vacuum waves, by the auto-correlation function of a wide-sense stationary process where has its maximum magnitude at zero, so the wave should not STOP.
What kind of background do you have, because if i'm going to explain that to you, i must know to who, am i talking to? I may have to start it in more basic stuff.
My friend, the all dam thing about 1st strike with TOTAL success of Apollo Missions, was totally controlled by NASA. Communications was controlled from NASA, so what you see or saw at that time, was not from the Space, get out of the Matrix buddy :D.
"The Lunar Racing Championship demonstration is a truly unique experience that combines the adrenaline-pumping immersion, with real low-gravity physics and the accurate terrain of the moon," Spending money on this for what?, i must respect NASA that's is a must indeed, but in early days was created by a bunch of Nazi boys, and i can't omit that. - pytro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@kurtu5 again, you are trying to explain me what happen on the video lol, that's ***** LOL. Now try to explain what is suppose happen if you are rolling on the Moon. And try to do the same thing as i told to raid517. cya later.
- pytro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I'm was not the one who start it, you believe whatever you want. MATLAB and MATHCAD is science (too miles ahead for your brain i think). Your words mean nothing, zero. Of course i can represent that, my 7 years working with this platforms, permit me simulate whatever i want ( but you cant understand, because you don't have mathematical/physics/engineer background to do it ). Do you think that going to the Moon is simple and miracles like Apollo Missions happens all the time, NO ACCIDENTS, flawless. Science makes you to be IGNORANT, that's the true nature of it. And you are telling that you don't have doubts with all the evidence, that they didn't go. Peace, i'm no arrogant, so don't respond like i must have the same reality of the world, as you do to me. If you really wanna know the "formula" to simulate that environment, you have to pay me $10,000. And i can provide to you an Interface do play same games on it. No work for free.
- pytro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Now to the braindead raid517, " and are likely to be utterly incapable of producing (on your own) any useful mathematical workings " .. am i suppose to put mathematical equations on this board? you dumb ass lol. Backup your thoughts because if make a brainwash to you on mathematics, I'll provide a new world, that you wouldn't understand, so stay with your reality because it's crystal and simple and you can understand it, pseudo-freak math magician.
And another miss-guided thought based on missed perceptions, lol:
"... pretty much perfect parabolic arc (this is what the Astronaut refers to as a 'rooster's tail' which is Astronaut slang for a parabola) and rapidly falls back down to the surface - just as you would expect in a vacuum. " - pretty much perfect parabolic, and rapidly falls back down - it's NOT WHAT HAPPENED, got THAT ! dasss. And STOP making story's, because i don't have time do read *****, if you want to prove to me that i'm wrong, make some calculations on MATLAB ( using simulink ) and before try to arranged theoretical formulas on MATHCAD, because i want to be clearly sure about what you think lol. I'm supposing that you have brain/knowledge enough to work with this platforms. If you don't, SHUT UP. - pytro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"Funny, I always imagined that it was the lack of understanding of science topics that made people ignorant." Eheh, do I have to Lol on this, do you know who i rephrase, that was not my line? ( Try to ask your scientists friends ).
" In case you think I am not serious, feel free to email me at quanta67 AT yahoo.com - and we can see how serious I am. " Do you really Digg_it? or Google_it? You can fine this stuff on the web lol. In fact there is a big simulation environment, because NASA are really trying to go to the Moon in 2020. It's no simple stuff, and some Control Engineers are working with MATLAB on that research.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2006/06_62AR.html get informed. - pytro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Good Morning, 1st of all thanks for trying to explain, but that explanation isn't good enough for the family, and doesn't believe that( is it conspiracy? nope, you can ask the family personally).
So Links to NASA reports about that accident, doesn't mean anything.
I'm wondering if you are somekind of "moderator" of Digg? (just wondering, because if you are, i'm really loving it :P ).
What makes it so hard, not to believe it was faked brother? I find that really annoying, but that's fine.
" Let's see a pen and paper break down and your mathematical workings that have led you to the assumption that the video you pointed to was fake - and also a mathematical proof of how you think the lunar dust should have behaved under these conditions - and providing they can be independently verified (which I have said, is really quite easy to do) I will pay you $10,000. "
My mathematical skills permit describe in time domain or frequency domain, that kind of patterns how would you prefer? What is easier for you, discrete or continuous? Can i explain it by Propertie 3 of Auto-correlation function? (just because Math is universal, i think you can understand, and be true to me please, because i really want to explain it, i think you deserve that, IMO), i mean the 1st lesson i must simulate "dust" waves in the vacuum , by the auto-correlation function of a wide-sense stationary process where has its maximum magnitude at zero, so the wave should not STOP.
What kind of background do you have, because if i'm going to explain that to you, i must know to who, am i talking to? I may have to start it in more basic stuff.
My friend, the all dam thing about 1st strike with TOTAL success of Apollo Missions, was totally controlled by NASA. Communications was controlled from NASA, so what you see or saw at that time, was not from the Space, get out of the Matrix buddy :D.
"The Lunar Racing Championship demonstration is a truly unique experience that combines the adrenaline-pumping immersion, with real low-gravity physics and the accurate terrain of the moon," Spending money on this for what?, i must respect NASA that's is a must indeed, but in early days was created by a bunch of Nazi boys, and i can't omit that. - pytro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Of course it is clear, instead of believing what others say, get the evidence from your eyes and rationalize it. And the link is raw footage from Apollo Mission, get the real thing: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1502962445208997168&q=buggy+rover ... watch REALITY @50 sec. The waves of dust shouldn't STOP.
And try to explain. If you can... - pytro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Good Morning, 1st to kurtu5, you are what? lol: Don't want to believe me that's fine, but I'm an Master Engineer. And guess what, you are projecting psycho calculations based on what your senses(eyes, perception) tells you. And of course then we enter the miss conception of believes.
" A scientist perhaps would have insisted on ideal ballistic trajectories. " don't be so ***** retarded, or trying to make me feel like one, so do analyze/interpreted my phrase, instead of saying *****.
" This new faster dust smacks into the falling column and starts piling up and increasing the density of the column, which stops more dust " got no comments on this, totally miss-guided, this argument is preposterous, big lie and loll ( only an "American" falls on this mind trap ). "Now go get a brain moran." eh eh sure indeed, because you are so ***** different. -
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
