It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Big NASA-Military Cover-up On Gravity And Atmosphere On The Moon!

page: 15
114
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
OK, I've read Mike's OP, however, I just don't have the time to go over the entire thread so I'll put my 2 cents in.

The gravity to me as ALWAYS seemed a bit odd whenever I've watch the films. To me, it just didn't look 'right'; granted, I've never seen anything in 1/6th of earth's gravity so, at this point all i can do is speculate.

However, there is one thing i do know; math is a universal language...period. Finding the NP of the moon is critical! I don't care what you say, the end result can not be broken when given the right formula.

Mike (OP), I concur with your statement below




While I’m a firm believer that we did go to the Moon after all, it wasn’t the Apollo program that was the first to put man on the Moon. Some aspects of the program, probably much of it, were staged and the remainder hidden from the public. It perhaps was a top secret military program that did it.

After a little research, I chanced upon an extremely interesting book written by William Brian titled, Moongate: The Suppressed Findings Of The U.S. Space Program. It exposes the greatest cover-up ever perpetrated. The author has compiled evidence from official government publications, NASA photographs and movies, news articles, and books by authorities in various fields.


So, from what I've gleaned over the last few years about who went to the moon and if we went there or not.

~NASA went to the moon, landed, and came back (main)
~NASA never went to the moon but, faked the whole thing.
~NASA went to the moon, but, completely covered up what was really there.
~NASA faked the moon shot, but the military used their own technology and whet there and back, and ARE still going there.

WOW! LOL.. here's has always been my line of questioning when thinking about Civilian projects like NASA, ect, "Did they receive ANY Gov $$, if so, how could they have military importance?"

If the answer is yes, I'd say the military would be involved.

Long time ago, heh, back in 1998 a great strategy game for PC came out by Activision which was a remake of a arcade game called 'Battlezone'

Here's a snippet of what it was, and yes.. I played it heavily!
)


The game starts in 1957 when a group of meteorites falls near the Bering Strait, which both the Americans and the Russians are able to recover. In these meteorites they find "bio-metal", and discover that with it they can build vehicles with amazing features, such as the ability to hover. Both the Soviets and Americans send forces to the Moon; the Apollo program is revealed to be a cover-up for the massive American military operation there.

The American space military force is called the NSDF, for National Space Defense Force, and the Soviets' is named the CCA, for Cosmos Colonist Army (However, manuals for the earlier version of the game call the CCA the 'Communist Cosmonaut Army').

The Soviets force the Americans off the Moon by destroying the main American outpost there, called Eagle's Nest 1. The NSDF relocates to Mars, only to discover that the CCA is already there. An alien artifact is discovered there by both sides, presumably by the same race who created the bio-metal. A weapons factory built by this civilization is also found on Mars.

It is revealed that the race in question called themselves the Cthonians, and lived on a planet called Icarus that occupied the orbit of what is now the asteroid belt. According to the game, Greek myths were based on visitations of Earth by the Cthonians.


Now as far fetched as that may sound, inline with this thread, it's not really to far off LOL>. well IMHO.

thanks again Mike. and yes.. your got 2 flags and stars on this one
)




posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 06:38 AM
link   
I admit to not reading all 15 pages of replies, but in case this didn't make it, this to me is all the evidence needed to debunk the landing.
www.youtube.com...

and if that wasn't enough,
In 1994, Armstrong emotionally states to next generation at 25th anniversary celebration,
www.youtube.com...

...to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers.


Between the above and the Van Allen Radiation Belt,
I sway towards the probable.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Komodo, nice post!

Very well-thought....especially your wondering what 1/6th G would look like.

A quick lesson in physics might help; Our planet, Earth, exerts what we have defined as 'ONE' G....this is the acceleration of gravity, as defined by not only Galileo, but by numerous scientists who followed...

Basically, it amounts to an 'acceleration' of ten meters per second per second. For the Americans in the audience, it was initially '32 feet per second per second'...because, 32 feet is about the same as ten metres...give or take a few centimetres!!!

Back on point: If you have never BEEN in a different gravitational environment, then how can you claim that what you see in videos is incorrect???

Still on point: If the surface of the Moon is mostly a vacuum, then everything we've seen in the Apollo videos is consistent.

(For the Physics Challenged in the audience....I should explain about 'acceleration due to gravity')

As we walk around on the surface of the Earth, we are CONSTANTLY being exposed to this acceleration...that's what holds us to the SURFACE of the planet!!!

Now, let's go SkyDiving!!!!

IF you jump out of an airplane (hope you took your parachute!) you will accelerate at ten metres per/sec/sec...(on Earth).

Of course, there is this thing we breathe....what we call the 'atmosphere'...and this is a 'friction' to an otherwise 'freefall'....

In the example I mentioned, a 'free-fall' before the parachute opens, a Human body reaches about 120 mph (about 140 kph) because of atmosperic resistance.

Back to the Lunar Landings....what seems to be missing is the simple understanding that the EVA suits were NOT what you see on current TV, or Movies.

The EVA (ExtraVehicular Activity suits) were designed to keep the Astronauts alive!!!!

Those who bother to read this thread should know, as well, that the Apollo Astronauts lived in a PURE Oxygen environment, at about 3 PSI.

Please compare to your normal Nitrogen/Oxygen Earth-Normal atmosphere of about 14.7 PSI....because OUR atmosphere is about 70/30....the 70 percent is NITROGEN....the rest is OXYGEN....(of course, there are various other gases, including Carbon Dioxide......but they have very small percentages.

NOW...we know why it was best to have 100% Oxygen for the Apollo missions...it was easier then, altthough dangerous. (The Shuttle DOES NOT use 100% O2....they are pressurized to Sea Level Earth conditions...)

Inside the EVA suits, as in the Space Capsules, they used the 3% pure O2....

Point is, the Astronauts, during EVA, had a certain amount of mobility....but that mobility was limited by the lack of flexibility of the suits.

Compared to EVA suits of today, it is like comparing the Model 'T' to a Ford 'Fusion'.....



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
I admit to not reading all 15 pages of replies, but in case this didn't make it, this to me is all the evidence needed to debunk the landing.
www.youtube.com...




These transmissions are a test broadcast at GET 10:32 and the live footage seen on TV by millions at GET 33:59. However there is a second Test footage segment and NASA provids all three on the same tape. What happened to the Test Transmission at GET 30:29? Why has Sibrel not used it in either of his videos?


Apollo 11 Broadcasts



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by imd12c4funn

In 1994, Armstrong emotionally states to next generation at 25th anniversary celebration,
www.youtube.com...

...to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers.




Sibrel is also very selective about what he choses to "excerpt" (butcher) from Neil Armstrong's speech. For some reason he omits the beginning and end:


Thank you, Mr. Vice President, Mr. President, members of Congress, fellow astronauts, ladies and gentlemen.

Wilbur Wright once noted that the only bird that cold talk was the parrot, and he didn't fly very well. So I'll be brief. This week America has been recalling the Apollo program and reliving the memories of those times in which so many of us here, colleagues here in the first rows, were immersed. Our old astrogeology mentor, Gene Shoemaker, even called in one of his comets to mark the occasion with spectacular Jovian fireworks. And reminding us once again of the power and consequence of celestial extracurricular activities.

Many Americans were part of Apollo, about one or two in each thousand citizens, all across the country. They were asked by their country to do the impossible--to envisage the design and to build a method of breaking the bonds of earth's gravity and then sally forth to visit another heavenly body. The principal elements--leaving earth, navigating in space and descending to a planet unencumbered with runways and traffic control--would include major requirements necessary for a space-faring people.

Today a space shuttle flies overhead with an international crew. A number of countries have international space programs. During the space age we have increased our knowledge of our universe a thousand-fold.

Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. To you we say we have only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth's protective layers. There are many places to go beyond belief. Those challenges are yours--in many fields, not the least of which is space, because there lies human destiny.
Source

The italics are mine of course. I wonder why Sibrel chose not to include this part of the speech. Armstrong was speaking of challenges yet to be met, truth's yet to be found. Sibrel twists those words of encouragement to the next generation to fit his own agenda. Sibrel is despicable.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


imd12....there was NO SUCH THING as 'high-definition' video 40 years ago!!!!

You have been fooled, as many others, by the 'clever' cutting together of incoherent footages, and the use of a 'British' narrator!!

You see, everything sounds oh, so better, when narrated in a British accent!!!

"No offence to Brits....is is a particularly cynical trick used to impress American's ears...so it's really an insult to Americans. AND, since I am an American, I have the right to my opinion."



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Hello old friend, good to see you again. Don't think I've forgotten you, just a lot to absorb. Good to see you.

Peace with you always...



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weedwhacker I thank you for your responses. I understand what I was taught in school, so I thank you for reiterating it.

So your telling me, that from our vantage point these planets are bright, but are not as bright as stars. Simple logic tells me that the light reflected on to the moon of Saturn is going to have much more intensity (on it's surface) then we see here, as a matter of fact it's shadow cast towards the Earth (if the moon Enceladus is on the side we are viewing) is going to detract from the light we see, even if just a small amount. This means the light detracted (from our view) is picked up on the surface, being so close to the surface of Saturn itself.

If I can see Saturns Reflected surface from Earth then how is the "Dark" Side of Encladeus (which appears to be a very reflective surface it self) not lit from the light (I can see on earth) reflecting from Saturn?

The body that is sitting closer to it's (Saturns) surface will pick up much more light then we are seeing here and given Enceladus surface (frozen off white) light should be all that's visible on the entire surface, unless they took this picture in the epoch of an eclipse?

I'm not sure what the relative distance is between Saturn and Enceladus compared to Earth and the Moon, but it should in effect make not a lick of difference given the surface area to reflect on to Enceladus from Saturn, as the earth is no match for surface area. Given that Saturns surface is all Gas vapor condensed clouds, the surface is not only reflecting the entire visible light range, but also the invisible, so Encladeus is not escaping reflection.

If the earth were relative distance from the Moon as Saturn to Enceladus, then the moon would catch that much MORE Earth shine would it not, being there less distance for the light to escape? But, again we are talking a massive reflecting surface compared to earth.

Lightening the picture is fine, but then we are introducing false light readings. The shadow is fading to black in the original picture. I'm sure it could be much lighter, but we would have to know the true light meter settings in order to determine that, but really there should only be a faint shadow on it's surface if any at all, yet the original picture has produced a shadow fading to black which is not possible for a reflective surface capable of reflecting light back to the earth, yet not on to it's very close moon.

Do this experiment, it's real science in action. Get a basketball and paint it just like Saturn, now get a pea and paint it a bluish white. Hang your Saturn in a dark garage with the garage door closed. Best to get some distance, better if you get a relative distance, and a relative size planet and moon (this represents our unfathomable "Sol"ar system or one little part of it I should say. (Use fishing line for clarity) Now hang your pea, again best using relative distance and same proximity, (no putting the pea on the dark side you rascal). That means the pea must be on our "sol" side. Now get about a 500 watt shop light (local home depot) at your relative distance and light her up. Oh yeah, paint your garage black and maybe use some white christmas lights for "star" effect. Now check out the darkside of our pea and tell me what you find. This will give you an idea of what it should look like on Enceladus. (If you really want to you can use glitter and stuff too
maybe you could represent the whole milky way.....)



Peace

[edit on 17-11-2008 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 07:13 AM
link   
For this thread:

If I had the ability to use a Federation Transporter to 'beam' you to the Moon's surface, just to clarify this discussion once and for all....

I would NOT do it without your permission, and, of course, I would not 'beam' you into the vacuum on the surface of the Moon.

(Unless you were safely in the EVA suit first).

Since this is Science Fiction, the idea of a 'Transporter', I'll switch to 'Science Fact'...

There happens to be a continuing 'fantasy' that somehow the 'farside' of the Moon incorporates a breathable (by Humans) atmosphere.

This fallacy is perpetrated by a basic lack of understanding regarding how the Moon actually orbits the Earth.

Some background....everyone knows that our planet Earth rotates about its axis in about 24 hours....we call that one 'day'.

The Moon also rotates about ITS axis....but it does it in almost 29 days. Oddly, the Moon also ORBITS the Earth in about 30 days' time. (This is a co-incidence of Nature....)

The result is, the Moon tends to display one hemisphere to us, at all times.
(+- 9 %)

My point is....some of these threads claim to talk about the 'FarSide' of the Moon....and it is true, from our vantage point, we never see that other hemisphere....but, as the Moon rotates, it experiences 'day' and 'night'...even though each 'day' is about 14 Earth 'days', just as each Lunar 'night' is about the same as 14 Earth 'days'....

Given all of the foregoing information, it should be clear to those who followed the Apollo missions, that EACH landing was timed to be on the Lunar Surface in what would be considered the 'early morning'....at each location.

Reason? The incredible variation of temperatures, from the two-week freezing-cold night to the incredibly hot two-week 'day'....

Best time for Apollo to land?? Early 'dawn', on the Moon. Not only were the temperatures acceptable, but the long shadows helped in perspective for visual accuity, as the Astronauts landed.

Anyone getting it yet??

Landing in an area of the Moon that was in its 'sunset' phase would have meant the soil, and surrounding areas, would have been very hot. Two weeks of cooling off would mean that the landing site (closer to the Lunar 'terminator', meaning just after Lunar 'dawn') would be better for the Lander, and the Astronauts.

I do not yet know of anyone who disputes that the Moon rotates about its AXIS roughly every 29-30 days. This is a scientific fact. Also, the Moon DOES orbit the Earth approximately once every 29-30 days. This is also an observed fact.

What has been tossed into the mix is this: It is somehow 'designed', this co-incidence. AND, the Hubris of this notion astounds me!

I will cite Occam's Razor, here, and wait for comments...and arrows(?) to fly my way!!!!

Peace!!!



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


letthe....Enceladus is NOT 'practically' in Saturn's atmosphere!

Any Moon that was in such a low orbit would soon, due to friction, find its orbit decaying to the point that it would spiral down, and be consumed by the 'host' planet.

This is a comment for anyone who stumbles across this thread: We Humans tend to think in terms of our lifetimes....say, 80-90 years. The Universe works differently -- in timespans hard to comprehend by us; hundreds of thousands, even millions of 'years', for events to play out.



Obviously it (Enceladus) is not in Saturns atmosphere or what you have determined would be. I said practically in the atmosphere, which is true. You can't crush an ant until you make contact. An ant could be "practically on me" yet not be on me. (I would have no direct influence until I was in contact with the ant) Once on me, i could flick it off, like a slingshot orbit or I could draw it in with a smack, which the ant could liken to an extreme gravity field.

Hopefully people are witted enough to know the difference between "practically in the atmosphere" opposed to "in the atmosphere".
I choose to believe that anyone visiting the thread can think for themselves, not having need for someone to explain fundamental things, but then again, I like to think more of people, then talking to them like they are monkeys.

**For anyone visiting this thread. (Who is light hearted)

We call this "shrinking down uncomprehendable things into comprehendable limits" scale.

This is what a "Model" is for. Here is an example.

When an architect wants to show a client an idea of what their future building will look like, they build a "Scaled-down" model. Much of this is done on computer now a days to where you can even walk through the model (without having to shrink yourself to an uncomprehendable size) in order to get an "idea" of how the actual building will be when built and even feel ascetically when built to full scale. The actual building takes Months, possibly years to finish, yet with the model, one can visualize it....Pretty neat!! I was amazed.

Perhaps you've heard of a "Model of the galaxy"? This is where this amazing technology comes in. There are even programs such as Celestia or even Microsoft World Wide Telescope and yes even in Google earth, you will find these amazing concepts at work. Don't let them boggle you, just remember they are there to put things into "scale" for you and give you a "perspective". Trying to comprehend the reality of it all could drive you insane, so just stick to the "models". Don't worry, I'm a layperson as well. I almost exploded trying to imagine the vastness of our "Universe", but was saved by this wonderful perspective giving "Scale" and now love building 57 chevys, Battleships, war planes and even planets. Thank you Toys R us....




P.S. This is the last time I will bring up the Saturn thing and am sorry if these posts detracted from the thread. I sincerely post my questions in understanding the atmosphere on the Moon of earth. I only bring up the reflection questions in trying to comprehend, that if there were atmosphere on the moon, then I would imagine it should be somewhat visible. Again, please forgive me if I've sent this in an unrelated way....sincerely ltru

[edit on 17-11-2008 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


ltru,

You tried, very valiantly, to appear intelligent.

However, I will stick to what you said: The Moon of Saturn you referred to as 'near the atmosphere'...means its orbit will eventually decay.

Not immediately, of course....however anyone who understands even the basics will understand that a satellite that is impacted by the atmosphere will eventually degrade, in its orbit....due to friction.

When we look at Planets in our Solar System, we see orbital systems that have been stable for billions of years....this includes our Moon/Earth system.

So, the Moons of Saturn are NOT getting anywhere near the upper atmosphere of that Planet, nor are they in dire threat of 'spiraling' in....sorry!!!



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Given all of the foregoing information, it should be clear to those who followed the Apollo missions, that EACH landing was timed to be on the Lunar Surface in what would be considered the 'early morning'....at each location.

Reason? The incredible variation of temperatures, from the two-week freezing-cold night to the incredibly hot two-week 'day'....

Best time for Apollo to land?? Early 'dawn', on the Moon. Not only were the temperatures acceptable, but the long shadows helped in perspective for visual accuity, as the Astronauts landed.

Anyone getting it yet??



WW,

Nope! I don't get it!!
I had mentioned this in another thread of mine, I think in "Uncensored NASA Moon Images!" Check out the image below. See the shadow of the astronaut? The sun is approx at 11O'Clock position, meaning almost mid afternoon!! Not sunset / sunrise, whence the shadow would have been very long!



Elementary, Dr Watson!!


Cheers!



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


ltru,

You tried, very valiantly, to appear intelligent.

However, I will stick to what you said: The Moon of Saturn you referred to as 'near the atmosphere'...means its orbit will eventually decay.

Not immediately, of course....however anyone who understands even the basics will understand that a satellite that is impacted by the atmosphere will eventually degrade, in its orbit....due to friction.

When we look at Planets in our Solar System, we see orbital systems that have been stable for billions of years....this includes our Moon/Earth system.

So, the Moons of Saturn are NOT getting anywhere near the upper atmosphere of that Planet, nor are they in dire threat of 'spiraling' in....sorry!!!

Weed, I love you...I do, but an intelligent writer, would at least quote the source, not ad lib in a bunch of things I didn't say.

However, I will stick to what you said: The Moon of Saturn you referred to as 'near the atmosphere'...means its orbit will eventually decay.

This is what I said:

Obviously it (Enceladus) is not in Saturns atmosphere or what you have determined would be. I said practically in the atmosphere, which is true. You can't crush an ant until you make contact. An ant could be "practically on me" yet not be on me. (I would have no direct influence until I was in contact with the ant) Once on me, i could flick it off, like a slingshot orbit or I could draw it in with a smack, which the ant could liken to an extreme gravity field.

Hopefully people are witted enough to know the difference between "practically in the atmosphere" opposed to "in the atmosphere".
I choose to believe that anyone visiting the thread can think for themselves, not having need for someone to explain fundamental things, but then again, I like to think more of people, then talking to them like they are monkeys.

I never said "near", "in the upper atmosphere", nor did I say "in dire threat of spiraling in".

Definition of practically:

# almost; nearly; "practically the first thing I saw when I got off the train"; "he was practically the only guest at the party"; "there was ...
# in a practical manner; "practically orientated institutions such as business schools"; "a brilliant man but so practically inept that he needed help to cross the road safely"
# much: (degree adverb used before a noun phrase) for all practical purposes but not completely; "much the same thing happened every time"; "practically everything in Hinduism is the manifestation of a god"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# In practice, in effect. Not necessarily officially the case but what actually occurs; almost, not completely
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/practically


See how easy that was. SPEAK TRUTH MAN, if you want to sound credible. That dis info tactic you spatter all over people really doesn't make you sound any smarter...just mean and like a dis info guy. Attitude always precedes dis info...been watching it for 8 years now....I'm really quite over it.

Since your one for nitpicking, let's check out intelligent....don't worry I really don't take any offense with the fact that you can't speak directly, nor will I insult you out of the side of my face like this:

You tried, very valiantly, to appear intelligent.


Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason , to plan , to solve problems , to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent

Matter of fact, this post is a testament to all of the "intelligent" people you argue against....having no experience of your own on the moon you speak with nothing more then text book knowledge...
You know that guy at a party who has done everything...climbed half dome..."oh yeah I did that" "except I did it free climbing...no ropes"....look away roll eyes...not another one!!!

An atmosphere is a layer of gases that may surround a material body of sufficient mass. The gases are attracted by the gravity of the body, and are retained for a longer duration if gravity is high and the atmosphere's temperature is low. ...


* Fallacy of Accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)--makes a generalization that disregards exceptions (e.g., Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.)
* Converse Fallacy of Accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter)--argues from a special case to a general rule (e.g., Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white.)

* Irrelevant Conclusion (also called Ignoratio Elenchi)--diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly
. This is sometimes referred to as a "red herring". Subsets include:
o purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),

You see, everything sounds oh, so better, when narrated in a British accent!!!

This is a comment for anyone who stumbles across this thread: We Humans tend to think in terms of our lifetimes....say, 80-90 years. The Universe works differently -- in timespans hard to comprehend by us; hundreds of thousands, even millions of 'years', for events to play out.

o popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--appeal to the majority),
o fear (argumentum ad baculum),
o conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam--appeal to authority)
* Affirming the Consequent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q (e.g., If a person runs barefoot, then his feet hurt. Socrates' feet hurt. Therefore, Socrates ran barefoot. Other things, such as tight sandals, can result in sore feet.)
* Denying the antecedent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis that P implies Q (e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I do not have the flu. Therefore, I do not have a sore throat. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.)
* Begging the question (also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando--arguing in a circle, or assuming the answer)--demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion (e.g., Paul must be telling the truth, because I have heard him say the same thing many times before. Paul may be consistent in what he says, but he may have been lying the whole time.)
* Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow")--incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great.)
o A special case of this fallacy also goes by the Latin term post hoc ergo propter hoc--the fallacy of believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.
o Another special case is given by the Latin term cum hoc ergo propter hoc -- the fallacy of believing that happenstance implies causal relation (aka as fallacy of causation versus correlation: assumes that correlation implies causation).
* Fallacy of Many Questions (Plurium Interrogationum)--groups more than one question in the form of a single question (e.g., Is it true that you no longer beat your wife? A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to wife-beating.)
Now you too can learn how to spot your own fallacy...
Try comprehending that before you try to tackle the unfathomable expanse called space.
Peace to you always
Ltru



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Using the position of the sun to tell time is a bit more complex than looking at the shadow. First, and most important, you need to know which direction north is. Do you know that from looking at the image? But even knowing that doesn't really help much. You need a sundial properly calibrated for your latitude (and season). Think for a moment: at dawn the sun is in the east, this puts a shadow at what "clock" position?
www.accuratesundials.com...


The fact is that all 6 landings were near the terminator so the sun never would have been very high in the sky.

Here is a map of the LZ's. nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Here you can find the phase of the moon for each landing. Phases


Or, if you're lazy, you can go here:
www.asi.org...
[edit on 17-11-2008 by Phage]

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


ltru....I understand....I paraphrased from one of your posts, and I lack the computer editing skills to do a proper fact-check, after having read your post that I respond to....I rely on memory.

Thank you for clearing it up, and please accept my apolgies.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


mike....regarding that photo in the post I reference, and the length of the shadow.

On the Lunar surface there are lacking many of the visual cues we are used to seeing, per our experiences from living on the Earth.

For instance: Perspective. We see a line of telephone poles....we assume they are all the same approximate height, no? By observing them in perspective we can estimate distance...Earthly distance, we do it all the time, almost subconsciensly. (sp?)

Also, we on Earth are accustomed to seeing things in the far distance as seen through the atmosphere. I could offer other examples, but my point is: What we see on the Moon is counter-intuitive, because it is alien.
Thus, some conclude 'FAKE'!!! In fact, it is a perception problem.

As to the photo you provided....do you know if the surface the Astronaut is standing on is flat, or is he on a hillside? Reason I ask is, anyone can check for themselves, how shadows change, depending on the underlying terrain. Haven't we all snapped a few photos in our lifetimes that seemed to defy our 'logic'...?

It's called an 'optical illusion'....we expect, due to experience, a certain 'look'....and sometimes it just doesn't fit our 'world view'......

(edit...i before e, except after c...)




[edit on 11/17/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Actually, Phage.....the direction of the shadow DOES tell us which direction the sun is shining from...hate to argue with you.

But, MY point is, I think, valid....a shadow can be foreshortened, or lengthened, depending on the terrain.

(That's why sundials are flat, and level)

In fact, I remember reading somewhere that some clever guy calculated the circumference of the Earth using a pole stuck in the ground, a bright sunny day, and a clock. Might have been an Egyptian.....or a Greek. Thinking Archimedes.......



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


It was Eratosthenes.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Phage
 


Actually, Phage.....the direction of the shadow DOES tell us which direction the sun is shining from...hate to argue with you.

But, MY point is, I think, valid....a shadow can be foreshortened, or lengthened, depending on the terrain.

(That's why sundials are flat, and level)

In fact, I remember reading somewhere that some clever guy calculated the circumference of the Earth using a pole stuck in the ground, a bright sunny day, and a clock. Might have been an Egyptian.....or a Greek. Thinking Archimedes.......



Yes WW, it does tell you the direction of the sun relative to the shadow. But to tell time by using a shadow you need more information. That's why, in order for a sundial to really tell time, it needs to be properly designed and oriented for its location (as well as being on level). Can you look at the picture that Mike posted and tell me if the sun is in the east or the west? Do you know the latitude at which the photo was taken? Fortunately, the moon's axis is only very slightly tilted so we don't have to take seasons into account.

But we don't really need any of that. The information is actually readily available. That image is from EVA #3 of Apollo 16. During that stroll the sun was at about 46 degrees above the horizon.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weed, I ask you to please accept my apology for snipping at you. I want you to know, as well as you Phage (Darned avatar, I really always picture you as John Lithgow in Buckeroo Bonzi) that I really honestly do look to you guys as some of the most knowledgeable guys on this site and value every word you guys put forth. I was having a bad day. My father just had his 60th (My dad is 60....AHHHH!!) and we had a huge party for him. I was working off an "oh I shouldn't of mixed Jack Danials and Dark Patrone" Head ache, yet that is no excuse for my retort. I may have some wild ideas sometimes, I may even disagree, but I will always respect and value your input and your knowledge.

I come to you humbly asking for your forgiveness, and hope I've not caused damage in my short comings. Sincerely your friend, ltru

(Still a little qweazy...whew)

Peace

P.S. I haven't forgot you ArMaP...thanks to you as well friend.




top topics



 
114
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join