Moon dust confirmed to be Fly ash waste product from coal power stations (Earth bound!)

page: 14
8
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


I think the idea there would be they are jockeying for position in space to blow one another up. The moon landing claims are just PR fluff. What they are really doing is building bombers and transport vehicles. So in that case the russians won't say anything. It doesn't serve them and only draws attention to their hoax scientific efforts. They too are building a shuttle type bomber or earth orbit military ferries and so on. Makes good sense on some levels.




posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
Lazares Brothers Banks of Paris
Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York
Goldman, Sachs Bank of New York

Nearly all major corporate stake tied to these 3 groups:

Vanguard Group
State Street Corporation
BlackRock





Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes...


You've left quite a mess here under your stewardship
You thought you figured it out but you'll learn your place in this
Might take some convincing for you to see the truth
There are so many things we've got in store for you.



Thread



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by touchdowntrojans
reply to post by DJW001
 


Stars are "theoretically point sources of light, but they photograph as tiny but nevertheless measurable discs. Of course scientists measure star dimensions in their pictures. Read about it pretty often.

This here is from NASA;


articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

The most important part of the article;




So when we take seconds long exposure pictures of stars, which is what they would have done back in the 1960s, just like the NASA article says here, the fixed star acquires fairly large dimensions.


The star of course is not a "disc" of light, nor is it in reality a "point" of light. But as you read here, stars "acquire comparatively large dimensions" owing to the fact we cannot image them instantaneously.


Because their images are less spread out when photographed from space, they look smaller. Of course the angular measurements are tiny. You can look them up for yourselves.

So one argument would be that in lunar orbit or from the lunar surface with a 1.6 inch aperture sextant, 40mm, you'd see 50,000 stars instead of of the 6 thousand you'd see with the human eye. The stars would be more blue, "smaller" in the sense just mentioned, their aberration would shift them by arcseconds from their earth POV positions. The planets would be smaller too. The planet's positions would reflect parallax, light to camera time differences and small aberrational effect as well. So there would be 4, 5, 6, 10 times the stars given scope or camera aperature difference and the stars would be moved and different sized and different colored. Since this might simply be an overwhelming task to hoax such a picture, one could suggest this as an explanation for why the astronauts say they don't see very many stars so very well and they never try to take pics of them. Too hard to hoax with all of this going on.

I think that is how a better argument for the star thing might go as I laid it out there. Better than saying they couldn't navigate given the aberration problem. I already said that doesn't make sense and believe the poster is wrong on that altogether.
edit on 7-11-2012 by touchdowntrojans because: left out some words


WRONG this is the most important part of the article

Date published 07/1859

Title:
On Celestial Photography
Authors:
de La Rue, W.
Publication:
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 19, p.353 (MNRAS Homepage)
Publication Date:
07/1859
Origin:
ADS
Bibliographic Code:
1859MNRAS..19..353D


Things have moved on slightly since then don't YOU think


Just shows the straws you guys will cling to in desperation!!!



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


Obama best shut this down now that he's got 4 more years. I think your basic idea is pretty much on target rolf. Like your challenging posts.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by touchdowntrojans
 



I think the idea there would be they are jockeying for position in space to blow one another up. The moon landing claims are just PR fluff. What they are really doing is building bombers and transport vehicles. So in that case the russians won't say anything. It doesn't serve them and only draws attention to their hoax scientific efforts. They too are building a shuttle type bomber or earth orbit military ferries and so on. Makes good sense on some levels.


Neither side hid their military uses of space. You yourself, in a previous incarnation, went on at length about MOL. It is well known that the military complicated the development of the Shuttle with their requirements. What would be the need for hoaxing a lunar landing program?



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by touchdowntrojans
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


I think the idea there would be they are jockeying for position in space to blow one another up. The moon landing claims are just PR fluff. What they are really doing is building bombers and transport vehicles. So in that case the russians won't say anything. It doesn't serve them and only draws attention to their hoax scientific efforts. They too are building a shuttle type bomber or earth orbit military ferries and so on. Makes good sense on some levels.


What would be the point of that?

It is well known that both the Soviets and the Americans were more than willing to demonstrate their military prowess to each other and the world. Why hide behind a bogus lunar program?
As if the Soviet regime of the 60's and 70's would ever let an opportunity pass to heap ridicule and scorn upon the capitalist west? Look at the history of that period.

I think you are way off the mark.


edit on 7-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by touchdowntrojans
 


Even from space, stars will appear bigger the longer you expose the sensor.
phys.org...

The Earth's atmosphere spreads out the light from stars only very slightly. And stars don't look any bluer from space than they do from Earth.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Of course stars look more blue from space. Just look at the pictures from space we have of the sun including the Apollo pictures. More white, less yellow, means more blue. Were one to study such photos which they of course do it is easy to see there is more blue. All stars, every single one look more blue. Not that you can necessarily pick it up with your peepers. I think you are trying to say it would not be so apparent with the naked eye . This is not what I am talking about.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Of course stars' images have width. Take a look and take a measure if you please.

myhome.spu.edu...

Every single one of these star images has a width measurable in degrees, radians, whatever is your pleasure. Because the above article is old does not mean the person did not articulate things well. Newton was not wrong because he wrote long ago.

You can read about it on your own, or if you care to wait, I'll find a thing or two for you about how stars are "smaller" when imaged from space with a modern camera, or one from the turn of the century. All the same.

Using the same exposure time and film speed and aperture, whether photgraphing today or one hundred years ago, the atmosphere will spread out the image of a star and so any given star will appear as a smaller disc on a shot taken from space.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


The fact the images are spread out slightly is something detectable and very much quantifiable. People measure these things. It may be the case that Apollo is a hoax and one reason they did not hoax image any stars at all from the surface of the moon is that such would be too difficult to do consistently convincingly. It would be subtle things like this that would bust the operation. I am not convinced, but very suspicious at this point.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by touchdowntrojans
 


The Sun doesn't look yellow from Earth, not unless it's close to the horizon. When you say stars look bluer in space, I'd like to see some scientific data or at least a realiable article supporting this. Otherwise it's just your conjecture.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Good place to start in the wiki. Basically the amount of visible light filtered is quite tiny. Of course sun looks yellow near the horizon, just like the sky itself can look red.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by touchdowntrojans
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Of course stars' images have width. Take a look and take a measure if you please.

myhome.spu.edu...

Every single one of these star images has a width measurable in degrees, radians, whatever is your pleasure. Because the above article is old does not mean the person did not articulate things well. Newton was not wrong because he wrote long ago.

You can read about it on your own, or if you care to wait, I'll find a thing or two for you about how stars are "smaller" when imaged from space with a modern camera, or one from the turn of the century. All the same.

Using the same exposure time and film speed and aperture, whether photgraphing today or one hundred years ago, the atmosphere will spread out the image of a star and so any given star will appear as a smaller disc on a shot taken from space.


Care to point out exactly were I say stars don't have width
IT was a comment on the date of the article 1859 so are you trying to claim nobody has written similar articles since then! As the distance from the Earth to the Moon will have such a small effect on angles and the fact the YOU have been told/shown that it had been corrected for YOU are trying to hang onto your BS assumption as long as possible.

As for the Astronauts not seeing stars while on the Moons surface, your eye will default to the level of the brightest object in your field of view , have you never driven or been on a train that has went through a long tunnel and you come out it daylight your eyes take a few seconds to adjust.

It can take 20mins + for eyes to FULLY adjust to darkness after being exposed to bright light!

As for stars in photographs search on the internet correct exposure for the Moon or Moon surface is like a bright sunny day as the light source is the sun. Check average exposure times for stars in Astrophotography sites with similar film/iso rating and aperture as the Astronauts used and a star will require many seconds to be exposed on film.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I thought for sure that this thread would be in the hoax bin by now.

I guess this is where ats politics come into play.

This thread only seems to have stayed on topic for the first few pages.

After that it is the same old rehashed debunked regurgitated garbage that is called the moon landing hoax.

Any other subject on any other forum would have been ransacked by moderators.

But hey, I am just making an observation. There are only 40,000 other threads on this same old crap.

Yes there is a thing called the search function.

Kudos to the soldiers still fighting the debunking war. You guys got some serious stamina for putting up with
ignorance for so long.


Now excuse me while I get off of the logic soapbox and try to find some content worth reading.
edit on 8-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


yeah - go figure

the only remotely valid point in his entire argument was :

much of the surface of the moon is covered in a fine grained solid

fly ash is a very fine grained solid

the " conclusion " he drew from the only 2 facts in his " case " was simply jaw dropping



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
The argument has always been you can't make dust behave like that on Earth.

Yes you can, using Fly ash and a vacuum chamber.


It is not too important because it does look like mankind will get there within our lifetimes if your are still relatively spritely

"On Thursday, space.com reported that Nasa could soon unveil ambitious plans for a return to the Moon. The mission would not be to the surface but to a gravitational sweet spot behind the Moon that offers free parking for spacecraft."

Exciting times ! I wonder how they will select the first person to step foot on the moon and whether the previous hoax will be revealed shortly after.


www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
You conviniently leave out the 1/6th gravity. Also the whole concept of vacuum chamber 100 times the size of a football field. So yeah...



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


www.nasa.gov...


For the football field shots they used scaled models - dummies. This is why the moon rover shots have static mannequins riding around on them.

There is nothing complicated here.. Just greed and deception.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


Your are not allowed to mention 9/11 and the moon hoax in these forums because they are linked.

Just cash cows to exploit the poor.#

Post banned..





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join