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

reply to post by donhuangenaro


There are several other theories that don't require speculation that flies in the face of other facts.

This comes from The Apollo Surface Journal. The most reasonable possibility is that Dave Scott touched the flag as he passed it.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

The rest of the PLSS outline was then drawn to scale. Alternatively, we note that, in the TV record, the apparent long dimension of Dave's PLSS - measured along a line titled 10 degrees to vertical - when he ran past the flag was 2.4 times the apparent long dimension of his PLSS when JIm was taking 12451. This means that the near face of the PLSS at the former time is 2.4 times as far from the TV as it was at the latter time. This would put the PLSS a bit closer to the TV camera than I have placed it in the labeled detail.

The result is not clear-cut. The estimated PLSS locations makes it possible that Dave's elbow could have touched the flag; but just barely, if at all. This may be consistent with the low amplitude of the observed motion, in that the low amplitude suggests only a slight perturbation, as might have happen if Dave barely brushed the flag with his elbow.

reply to post by Phage


Yes I can also see your support for the other side of the argument, which is excellent, but Really happened????

Why is it so difficult for people to accept any possibility of any sort of atmosphere on the moon???

But in saying this, why is there a need for an atmosphere on the moon????

You see, it is all a matter of belief really, no matter what side of he argument you are on....

Do we have a Telescope capable of seeing our Space Junk (Left Overs), on the Moon???

I am Not intending to be Insulting here, to Science or anyone else.....

Can you help us with this please?

And if there is such a telescope then can we view this left over equipment can the public have access to it to see for themselves???

[edit on 12-12-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Do we have a Telescope capable of seeing our Space Junk (Left Overs), on the Moon???

Unfortunately we do not. You'd need a telescope with a mirror 200m in diameter (the biggest is 11m I think). However the LRO when launched will have a resolution of about 1m per pixel. That's enough to make out the larger left over hardware. But being a NASA orbiter, I'm sure that still won't convince many people. India's recently launched Chandrayaan-1 has a camera capable of 5m per pixel from what I recall. That might be enough to make out the LM's decent module.

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by Phage

 

Why is it so difficult for people to accept any possibility of any sort of atmosphere on the moon???

Speaking for myself (as usual ), the only difficulty I have in accepting the possibility of the existence of an atmosphere dense enough to be breathable, as some people think, is that we do not see any traces of that.

An atmosphere would be noticeable during eclipses, for example, and we do not have any reference of that.

Mars Express (I think) is using the light from the stars seen through Mars' atmosphere to help analyse the atmosphere's composition, so it shows that it is possible to have relatively good information about the atmosphere of a planet just by looking at the light that shines trough it.

And yes, the Moon has an atmosphere, but it's very, very thin.

But in saying this, why is there a need for an atmosphere on the moon????

That is an excellent question, while I understand why people say that the Moon has no atmosphere (and explain why they say it) I do not understand why people say that the Moon has an atmosphere dense enough (and with the right composition) to be breathable and deny that what "mainstream science" says is true just because they are "mainstream science".

That is why I try to keep beliefs and preconceptions away from subjects for which I have no real way of having a personal confirmation.

Do we have a Telescope capable of seeing our Space Junk (Left Overs), on the Moon???

No, the things left on the Moon are too small for that.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by donhuangenaro

 

There are several other theories that don't require speculation that flies in the face of other facts.

Just wondering if we get to hear "several" or just one?

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


You could go to the link. That was kind of the point. Personally, I don't like it when paragraph after paragraph of external quotes are used when a link is available. I just provided a quote I thought pertinent.

[edit on 12/12/2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Silly me, I thought this was a discussion board where you might discuss things like the "several" you learned about. You could even use your own words like a big boy and do it in pen and everything. I did not realize this was just a link dumping ground. I normally expect better discussions here than "here's a link that says what I am too lazy to."

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


Yeah well, it's Friday.

Why would I talk about the other possibilities? I said what I thought the likely explanation is. I mentioned there were others because it had been put forth that the only possible explanations were that a) There is a substantial atmosphere on the Moon or b) the video was faked on Earth.

I provided a link that gives a good analysis of what I consider the likely possibility. If you're looking for a linkless forum you're in the wrong place. I, and others, often expect and ask for sources other than the poster's opinion.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

I, and others, often expect and ask for sources other than the poster's opinion.

Yes....to back up what they said. I never said I wanted a linkless forum, just posters to add some substance along with their links. But then they would have rules about short posts if that were the case.

reply to post by ArMaP

And yes, the Moon has an atmosphere, but it's very, very thin.

That is what I understood too...

I am sure I read something about this in some scientific article....

The atmosphere would only be very, very, thin I know and I suspect made up of gas's from seismic activity or volcanic, Possibly some captured as well. But the Atmosphere would be much lower in pressure that's for sure.
I understood that some Ice is also present at one or both polls. Is this correct?

Originally posted by Phage

There are several other theories that don't require speculation that flies in the face of other facts.

Hi phage! I'm surprised that you have reproduced so called 'facts' that are not facts at all!! Take a look at the highlighted words. 'Maybe', 'if at all', 'suggests' and so on. In other words those 'facts' aren't facts at all. Just plain speculation, conjecture.

The result is not clear-cut. The estimated PLSS locations makes it possible that Dave's elbow could have touched the flag; but just barely, if at all. This may be consistent with the low amplitude of the observed motion, in that the low amplitude suggests only a slight perturbation, as might have happen if Dave barely brushed the flag with his elbow.

Or do I need to brush up my grammar? Where's Wren and Martin?

To me it seems the PLSS of that astronaut was a couple of feet away from the flag pole. Check out the base of the pole earlier on in the vid and extrapolate it, (since it disappears later due to zooming). Now check out the distance of the PLSS from the pole and it would SEEM as if they are separated by a foot or so. Therefore the theory that the astronaut brushed the flag making it 'flutter' may not be the right answer.

But hey! What do I know?

Cheers!



[edit on 13-12-2008 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Do we have a Telescope capable of seeing our Space Junk (Left Overs), on the Moon???
Can you help us with this please?
And if there is such a telescope then can we view this left over equipment can the public have access to it to see for themselves???

Ok, let's see if we can see any junk on the Moon! Forget about Earth based telescopes as it's impossible to see any equipment on the Moon even with the most powerful telescopes available. So let's check out Hubble instead:

The Hubble's primary mirror is 2.4 m wide. Not as big as many ground-based telescopes, but being in space it doesn't have to contend with the atmosphere.

Hubble's WFPC2 is the telescope's main camera. The Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) is behind most of the famous Hubble pictures. It doesn't use film to record its images. Instead, it collects information from stars and galaxies to make photographs with the help of four pieces of high-tech circuitry called Charge-Coupled Devices (CCDs)

All said and done, Hubble’s resolution is 0.06 arc-seconds. So looking at the Earth from a distance of 600 km, it can resolve objects as small as 30 cm. Looking at the Moon from 375,000 km, it can resolve objects as small as 360 m. (Oh darn! You can’t see those moon buggies and flags!!)

And looking at Mars, 75 million km distant at conjunction, objects as small as 36 km wide can be made out. So that’s not too good to see that face of Mars, what?

Now someone brought out the possibility of seeing stuff on the Moon with Chandrayaan-1. Considering the TMC's (Terrain Mapping Camera) has a res of 5m, anything smaller than this would not be easy to identify. The Apollo missions did leave some small scientific instruments on the Moon, but these would be difficult to spot unless there were larger than 5m. And there are none bigger than that!

Probably the Apollo Moon buggy? But considering that the frame was 10 feet (3 m) long with a wheelbase of 7.5 feet (2.3 m) and a maximum height of 3.75 feet (1.1 m), you'd still not be able to see it!

And what of the MIP? Considering that its dimensions are 14.76 inches x 14.76 inches x 18.5 inches, there is absolutely no way the MIP can be photographed by the TMC!

Hope that answers your question!

Cheers!

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by Phage

There are several other theories that don't require speculation that flies in the face of other facts.

Hi phage! I'm surprised that you have reproduced so called 'facts' that are not facts at all!! Take a look at the highlighted words. 'Maybe', 'if at all', 'suggests' and so on. In other words those 'facts' aren't facts at all. Just plain speculation, conjecture.

Ok, maybe now you get what my problem is. You think I am just trying to be a jerk just to be a jerk, OK. How about because people say stuff like "severl reasons" and list one. When I call them on several being just one, they waste two more posts defending why they did not take the time to just put them in the original post. And.......the one offered is nothing but conjecture anyway. So, when I try to get logic and sense out of people and instead get pseudo intellectualism using many words to rudely explain why they do not want to use lots of words and blah blah blah.

I have asked the same questions over and over and it takes at least 3 times to get an answer after you all whine that I am purposely being obtuse. OK! Call it what you like but I am still waiting for one of you to explain this all to me.

This is time number four for this particular question but I will try to use more short words and see if anyone can get it now.

-ok, let's say it is a different boot print than one we should know of...now what???????????? I got answers, sort of, but no one is willing to take their theory past that inane first step. Instead you get all huffy and explain how you already explained it. No. You have not.

Where does your theory go if you are right about the boot print? Are you claiming aliens get their boots from the same manufacturer as us and it is a secret? Are you claiming that there is a secret NASA program that is ahead of the public program, and to help keep it secret, they took great pictures of the incriminating evidence?????????????

Come on. You want to prove this boot print does not fit so badly. Ok, you win. No one wants to explain why they said the prints were "not similar at all" so either that was a lie or just a stupid thing to say but there it sits. So fine, let's just accept it is true. You win, you proved there is a small boot print on the moon. Now what? Which one of my insane theories are you going with here? I am genuinely curious, not asking to be a jerk. If I just wanted to be a jerk, I would harp on things like "not very simlar at all" until the poster admitted how stupid it was to say, but I am not looking to just argue for fun. I really want to know what the hell you are proposing is the real cause behind this. I got the two short ansers -Aliens and secrets. Don't bother with that step, I am asking then what? Unless this was just a lame excuse to start a thread about pointless crap, I would imagine one of you supporters of this had at least thought this out a little more as in what it means, what the implications of it are, etc.

Before you tell me to stop being a jerk and just trying to argue, show me where that answer is in this thread already. Befor you tell me it has been covered already, go find it and back that up. It has not. You can either address the question and explain your theory and make a better case for yourself and maybe convince people to see what you see... or you can call me names, tell me I am being a jerk, contradict yourself and then ignore being called on. Up to you.

Originally posted by mikesingh
Hi phage! I'm surprised that you have reproduced so called 'facts' that are not facts at all!! Take a look at the highlighted words. 'Maybe', 'if at all', 'suggests' and so on. In other words those 'facts' aren't facts at all. Just plain speculation, conjecture.

I didn't claim it was a fact. I called it a theory, the most reasonable theory. The facts I was referring to include the fact that the atmosphere on the moon is insubstantial, as confirmed by direct observation and instrumentation (I know, all lies). The fact that there were Moon landings, that the video was not staged on Earth (yeah, those are lies too, but I know you don't think so).

It's not pure speculation. There is some data available. The reason I provided the link is because it includes an analysis which used the stills taken at time the movie was being made. The analysis includes factors that would affect the estimates of distance that are used and thus the use of words like "possible". Of course the only way to be absolutely sure would be to ask Dave if he remembered brushing the flag. Something tells me he wouldn't recall or even have been aware of it though.

To me it seems the PLSS of that astronaut was a couple of feet away from the flag pole. Check out the base of the pole earlier on in the vid and extrapolate it, (since it disappears later due to zooming). Now check out the distance of the PLSS from the pole and it would SEEM as if they are separated by a foot or so. Therefore the theory that the astronaut brushed the flag making it 'flutter' may not be the right answer.

But hey! What do I know?

Not that the video camera did not have a zoom lens, for one thing. That was something I checked on while I was considering if this was a reasonable explanation.

a set of four fixed-focus zoom lenses were chosen in preference to a zoom lens or a turrent system, because either of the latter would have been heavier and less reliable

history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 12/13/2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by donhuangenaro

 

There are several other theories that don't require speculation that flies in the face of other facts.

The result is not clear-cut. The estimated PLSS locations makes it possible that Dave's elbow could have touched the flag; but just barely, if at all. This may be consistent with the low amplitude of the observed motion, in that the low amplitude suggests only a slight perturbation, as might have happen if Dave barely brushed the flag with his elbow.

Yes, I can agree that the astronaut could barely touch the flag, but on this longer clip the distances are more clear:


there is another theory that include electrostatics but if that were true the flag would go around toward the astronaut that placed it and stands/walks around very close to it...

I'm no scientist and this, of course, is just my opinion!

cheers



[edit on 13-12-2008 by donhuangenaro]

Originally posted by Phage
Not that the video camera did not have a zoom lens, for one thing. That was something I checked on while I was considering if this was a reasonable explanation.

a set of four fixed-focus zoom lenses were chosen in preference to a zoom lens or a turrent system, because either of the latter would have been heavier and less reliable

history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 12/13/2008 by Phage]

Hey Phage,
Don't know if I am interpreting what you wrote wrongly, but the camera system you are referencing that had the fixed lenses in lieu of zoom capability is the WEC camera - which is the early black&white Westinghouse TV camera system used on the Moon by only the Apollo 11 crew.

The TV camera system that took the imagery of the flag waving during the Apollo 15 mission to Hadley however is the RCA GCTA (Ground Controlled Television Assembly) color television camera, which most assuredly did have both zoom and turret-control capability.

Here is some info on the GCTA used during Apollo's 15, 16 and 17.
ntrs.nasa.gov...

Cheers!

reply to post by LunaCognita


I was way too hasty. I blew it. Thank you.
And apologies to Mike.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by Phage]

Umm..the flag is wavy, but it isnt actually waving like a flag would in wind. Its not a piece of ridgid cardboard. Its hanging by an inverted L piece and the top of the flat is supported by the upper part of the inverted L.


When it moves as it is handled, thats just normal for a cloth hanging on an inverted L rod. Any other time, the flag just sits there and doesnt wave as one would in a wind.

Any atmosphere up there would be so thin its virtually not there or enough there to even be of any issue. When the flag moves on its own, it can be from this very thin atmosphere holding in a very very thin layer of wispering dust particles causing the flag to "look" as if there was actual wind.

JMO


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by Phage


No problem! But check out the last seconds of the vid that donhuangenaro posted a couple of posts above. The flag seems to wave ever so slightly on its own! As though there's a whiff of breeze that caused it. But that could be an illusion. Observe it carefully, about two seconds from the end.

What do you think?

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh


Or maybe it's waving like someone had touched slightly and, because there is no real atmosphere to stop it, it keeps on waving.