Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 51
105
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


Surely you are not suggesting that the Astronauts wouldn't have needed to wear a spacesuit on the Moon???

Whose post are you reading that mentions anything even remotely close to that, certainly not mine. They need space suits to protect themselves from the heat of the sun as well as provide them oxygen.





It is not a false claim and I already gave you irrefutable evidence!...The official Apollo 15 landing footage:

www.youtube.com...


Do you still not realize that that video fully contradicts your claim? You've either not actually watched it or you just refuse to acknowledge it because it proves you wrong.




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Surely you are not suggesting that the Astronauts wouldn't have needed to wear a spacesuit on the Moon???


The Moon has an extremely tenuous atmosphere.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.windows2universe.org...

NASA are going to launch a new space probe soon that will study this atmosphere and dust surrounding the Moon. www.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Surely you are not suggesting that the Astronauts wouldn't have needed to wear a spacesuit on the Moon???


The Moon has an extremely tenuous atmosphere.

en.wikipedia.org...


The very first sentence of the above link states:

"For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum"...Thats all you need to know.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Moderator note:

Please discuss the evidence and not your opinion of the intelligence and integrity of other posters.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Surely you are not suggesting that the Astronauts wouldn't have needed to wear a spacesuit on the Moon???


The Moon has an extremely tenuous atmosphere.

en.wikipedia.org...


The very first sentence of the above link states:

"For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum"...Thats all you need to know.




Which does not negate the fact that the moon does have an atmosphere. Very tenuous, almost non-existent, but note that word "almost". It is there.

However, for most "practical" purposes, such as you or I taking a stroll in jeans and a T-shirt, it would be the same as being exposed to pure vacuum.
For "practical" purposes, the moon's atmosphere is so tenuous, that there is not even enough there to help suspend dust particles.

So yes, for most "practical" purposes, it might as well be a vacuum.

However, that isn't what you said.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


Surely you are not suggesting that the Astronauts wouldn't have needed to wear a spacesuit on the Moon???

Whose post are you reading that mentions anything even remotely close to that, certainly not mine. They need space suits to protect themselves from the heat of the sun as well as provide them oxygen.





It is not a false claim and I already gave you irrefutable evidence!...The official Apollo 15 landing footage:

www.youtube.com...


Do you still not realize that that video fully contradicts your claim? You've either not actually watched it or you just refuse to acknowledge it because it proves you wrong.


Obviously you haven't watched it or you would know it proves me right! When you hear him say "contact", that is the instant the LM touched down and when you hear him say "shut down", that is the instant the engine shut off...About 5 seconds after touchdown.
However there is some confusion over whether this is Apollo 14 or Apollo17 footage...The titles say it is Apollo 17 but the guy who posted it on youtube said it was Apollo14...Not that is really matters one way or the other, the facts remain.
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Contact is when the probe touches the lunar surface, not the landing pads.


Finally, three-foot-long probes extending from three footpads of the lander touched the surface, activating the contact indicator light which signaled time for descent engine cutoff, allowing the LM to settle on the surface.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Surely you are not suggesting that the Astronauts wouldn't have needed to wear a spacesuit on the Moon???


The Moon has an extremely tenuous atmosphere.

en.wikipedia.org...


The very first sentence of the above link states:

"For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum"...Thats all you need to know.




Which does not negate the fact that the moon does have an atmosphere. Very tenuous, almost non-existent, but note that word "almost". It is there.

However, for most "practical" purposes, such as you or I taking a stroll in jeans and a T-shirt, it would be the same as being exposed to pure vacuum.
For "practical" purposes, the moon's atmosphere is so tenuous, that there is not even enough there to help suspend dust particles.

So yes, for most "practical" purposes, it might as well be a vacuum.


OK, so we can agree on that but given that it might as well be a vacuum, it doesn't substantiate the theory that the dust was suspended in the lunar "Atmosphere".

edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Yes and if you watch the video at 3:17 they say CONTACT and at 3.22 TOUCHDOWN and engines off they DO not keep the engines running for 5 secs after landing (ie TOUCHDOWN ) as you claim



edit on 1-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Surely you are not suggesting that the Astronauts wouldn't have needed to wear a spacesuit on the Moon???


The Moon has an extremely tenuous atmosphere.

en.wikipedia.org...


The very first sentence of the above link states:

"For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum"...Thats all you need to know.




Which does not negate the fact that the moon does have an atmosphere. Very tenuous, almost non-existent, but note that word "almost". It is there.

However, for most "practical" purposes, such as you or I taking a stroll in jeans and a T-shirt, it would be the same as being exposed to pure vacuum.
For "practical" purposes, the moon's atmosphere is so tenuous, that there is not even enough there to help suspend dust particles.

So yes, for most "practical" purposes, it might as well be a vacuum.


OK, so we can agree on that but given that it might as well be a vacuum, it doesn't substantiate the theory that the dust was suspended in Atmosphere.

However, that isn't what you said.


I've never said anywhere in this thread that dust was suspended in the atmosphere. Ever.

However, you can see dust on the landing pads and probes. You can see dust flying away in the videos that you posted.

You've been shown pictures of where the LEMs have come down, and you can see markings from the rocket plume.
No, they are not symetrical and if they were, I would be very suspicious then. They are not perfect because of the ground itself and it's topography.
No huge holes would have been blasted out of rock because the thrust at that point was very minimal (they were landing, not taking off).
The lunar soil (which is more of a fine dust) was blasted away, and you can even see the pile up of it away from the rocket funnel.
There are not HUGE piles of this dust, because the soil is only a few inches thick.

You were shown a paper on the thrust and it's affect on the lunar surface. You said that it was wrong. That's fine considering the lack of data the person had to work with.

BUT......you have not offered anything tangible in return, such as your own calculations, or even trying to perform and experiment yourself to show us. You just sit there and say it's all wrong with nothing to back up what you are saying. Try instead to give us something tangible to work with.

You insist that because the moon's average albedo is so low, that there is no way that it should have affected the ability of camera film to capture star light.
Instead: prove it.

Create a large surface that is painted or uses material that gives the same albedo.
Wait for a crystal clear night with no moon out.
Set up a large spot light shining down on the area (your fake sun).
If you really want to get into it, set up other lights for your "filler light".
Set up some mock ups, you can use cardboard cut outs if you want.
Now take your camera and start snapping pictures, making sure that your shutter speed is no slower than 1/50.

Then show us the stars that you claim should be there.

And no, the Earth's atmosphere will not stop this. It does during the day due to the light scatter in the atmosphere.

Oh, and when you've done the above? When you've finished that, take a single frame, but hold the shutter open for 15 seconds.......take a look at that frame. Bet you see stars then.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Yes and if you watch the video at 3:17 they say CONTACT and at 3.22 TOUCHDOWN and engines off they DO not keep the engines running for 5 secs after landing (ie TOUCHDOWN ) as you claim



edit on 1-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


Here is a link that shows how the probes work:

heroicrelics.org...

Note: they do not automatically shut off the engine when they make contact, as some here have suggested.
The probes simply activate a "contact light" on the control panel in front of the Astronauts to alert them when its time to shut down the engine. Its quite possible that with the all the excitement they had an adrenalin rush and they simply forgot to shut it down till five seconds after the light has illuminated in front on them. In other words they might have made a simple mistake.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Regardless of whether they made a mistake or not "contact" doesn't mean they have landed. It means that the landing probes have made contact with the lunar surface, and the contact light is illuminated. When they say "touch down", THAT is when the landing pads are in contact with the lunar surface.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Surely you are not suggesting that the Astronauts wouldn't have needed to wear a spacesuit on the Moon???


The Moon has an extremely tenuous atmosphere.

en.wikipedia.org...


The very first sentence of the above link states:

"For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum"...Thats all you need to know.




Which does not negate the fact that the moon does have an atmosphere. Very tenuous, almost non-existent, but note that word "almost". It is there.

However, for most "practical" purposes, such as you or I taking a stroll in jeans and a T-shirt, it would be the same as being exposed to pure vacuum.
For "practical" purposes, the moon's atmosphere is so tenuous, that there is not even enough there to help suspend dust particles.

So yes, for most "practical" purposes, it might as well be a vacuum.


OK, so we can agree on that but given that it might as well be a vacuum, it doesn't substantiate the theory that the dust was suspended in Atmosphere.

However, that isn't what you said.



I've never said anywhere in this thread that dust was suspended in the atmosphere. Ever.

However, you can see dust on the landing pads and probes. You can see dust flying away in the videos that you posted.

You've been shown pictures of where the LEMs have come down, and you can see markings from the rocket plume.
No, they are not symetrical and if they were, I would be very suspicious then. They are not perfect because of the ground itself and it's topography.
No huge holes would have been blasted out of rock because the thrust at that point was very minimal (they were landing, not taking off).
The lunar soil (which is more of a fine dust) was blasted away, and you can even see the pile up of it away from the rocket funnel.
There are not HUGE piles of this dust, because the soil is only a few inches thick.

You were shown a paper on the thrust and it's affect on the lunar surface. You said that it was wrong. That's fine considering the lack of data the person had to work with.

BUT......you have not offered anything tangible in return, such as your own calculations, or even trying to perform and experiment yourself to show us. You just sit there and say it's all wrong with nothing to back up what you are saying. Try instead to give us something tangible to work with.


I was under the impression that he only showed us part of the entire set of mathimatical formulae that he used to get the final results, because several times in his article he says something like "the calculations are very complex".
As he only only shows us some of formulae used I have no way of knowing how he arrived where he did.
I will try and contact him and see if he can do a re run with more accurate figures.


edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Here is a link that shows how the probes work:

heroicrelics.org...

Note: they do not automatically shut off the engine when they make contact, as some here have suggested.
The probes simply activate a "contact light" on the control panel in front of the Astronauts to alert them when its time to shut down the engine. Its quite possible that with the all the excitement they had an adrenalin rush and they simply forgot to shut it down till five seconds after the light has illuminated in front on them. In other words they might have made a simple mistake.


NO one said they automatically shut down what was said a light in the cabin shows the probes have made contact and the engines are switched off NOBODY said how the engines were switched off guess why because we have posted this type of info on many threads on here we all know YOU assumed


Also I gave you the link above on a post on page 50


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 1-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


To summarize the video that you yourself posted as proof of the engine's running for five seconds after the craft had landed:

3:17, Probe(s) make(s) contact with lunar surface
3:22, Engine stop
3:31, Houston, the Challenger has landed!

Please explain how, in your mind, this timeline shows that the engines were running for five seconds after touchdown. It is painfully obvious to anyone who watched this video that what you claim and what the video shows are not the same thing. I will remind you once again that this is simply actions being spoken aloud and we can assume some delay between when actions occurred and when they were spoken. Either way, the sequence of events clearly shows that the engines were cut off well before touchdown and your claim of five seconds after touchdown is, as the video you yourself have provided, false.


jra

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Yes, an interesting read but alas, totally flawed because his calculations are based on totally incorrect inputs!
He used Earths Gravity constant (9.81m/s), not the gravity on the Moon (1.64m/s).


That was just for calculating the effective exhaust gas velocity. Using standard gravity actually creates a higher number than what you'd get on the Moon, but he did say he was taking a more conservative approach, so a higher number would work more in your favour in the chances of it making a crater.


We know the maximum and minimum thrusts produced by the LMs rocket motor but he decided to pluck some random totally irrelevent figure out the air.


In what way is it random or irrelevant?


And he based his calculations on the bottom of the bell nozzle being 7 feet above the Lunar surface which is completely wrong.


Look at figure 1 again. The contact probes are touching the surface, not the landing pads. The probes are about 5' long, the end of the engine bell is 2' above the pads. Thus the engine bell being 7' above the lunar surface before engine shutdown.


He even overstated the diameter of the bell nozzle...He said it was 63" (1.6 m) but its actually 59" (1.5 m).


I doubt 4" makes any significant difference in the calculations.


Also he hasn't taken into account what the 5 second burn after touchdown until shut down would have had.


Because there was no 5 second burn after touchdown.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Yes and if you watch the video at 3:17 they say CONTACT and at 3.22 TOUCHDOWN and engines off they DO not keep the engines running for 5 secs after landing (ie TOUCHDOWN ) as you claim



edit on 1-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


Where is your evidence?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


To summarize the video that you yourself posted as proof of the engine's running for five seconds after the craft had landed:

3:17, Probe(s) make(s) contact with lunar surface
3:22, Engine stop
3:31, Houston, the Challenger has landed!

Please explain how, in your mind, this timeline shows that the engines were running for five seconds after touchdown.


Simple, dust was still being blown away by the still running rocket plume until 3:27!...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 

More simple.
Dust was still settling for 5 seconds after engine shutdown.


CHALLENGER Boy, when you said shut down, I shut down and we dropped, didn't we?
CHALLENGER Yes, sir, but we is here, man is we here. How does that look?

www.jsc.nasa.gov...
edit on 2/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDaytonaFlinstones
My son pointed out to the astronaut among other things that Alan Shepard himself stated in his debriefing that he was unsure as to whether the stars he sighted were "correct". Read it for yourself. Shepard was not sure. If you can't be sure , you can't go to the moon. Just take a look at the Apollo 14 Technical Crew Debriefing.

Sure you can go to the moon. You did not do as I suggested and try the guidance system for yourself. If you had you would have found that it was fully capable of finding the star for you based on the initial alignment prior to launch. Once slewed there all you have to do is center it up and mark it. As long as you don't hit gimbal lock and lose alignment you should never find yourself in a situation where you're forced to hunt for the stars blindly. You may not be sure yourself if the star is correct or not, but at the end of the alignment process it will tell you how far off your marks were from the expected distance between the two stars or star and planet/moon. If you were wrong, you will see so right away. Again, it's perfectly clear to me that you are unfamiliar with how the actual guidance system worked. Dave Scott made that thing sing when he was flying it, he made it operate basically like a GOTO telescope does today.






top topics



 
105
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join