Chinese Moon Rover ... VS ... Appollo Moon Walk (don't miss this one)

spartacus699

Makes you wonder if the China rover is real too? Hard to say. I think all these space programs are just a ploy to steal tax payer money. Biggest scheme going. For ever billion you've spent on space missions, say 100k of that has gone toward the hollywood production you get to see, the other 9900k goes into both secret Mil-ind complex programs and just gets shipped into offshore accounts of the elitists. That's my guess. China has probably just started to figure out the scam and started using it as well.

Ah but this is where that logic fails miserably. China does not need to fake ANYTHING in order to use ANY amount of money for ANY purpose. It is a single party state ie a dictatorship. If you disagree with the state you spend a long time in jail.

It is ironic that such a form a government actually proves the exact opposite i.e. man can send robotic probes to the moon. Given that the US and Europe have far more experience in these technologies surely it should come as no surprise that those countries are able to send probes further than the moon i.e. Mars, asteroids, mercury, a comet! etc etc.

Now, what I will concede is that an awful lot of those Apollo photos are perfect....too perfect. You only have to look at the discarded photos of a professional photographer to realise that 90-95% of photos NEVER get published because they are crap. Also take into consideration that a professional photographer has 10 ungloved fingers, no helmet, ability to focus etc etc .....sheesh..... I can fully believe there are staged photos in order for the Apollo program to continue to have public support. Imagine the interest if the only photos were out of focus, grainy, poorly framed images.

LaElvis
reply to post by spartacus699

 

Have you ever heard of wind erosion?? Go anywhere on Earth and look back 44 years......I doubt if it looks the same!!!

Sooo, a person that thinks there is wind on the moon is offering technical wisdom?

ignorant_ape
reply to post by spartacus699

 

the truth ?

lets dissect one amazing statemen from an idiot in your source vids :

“ outside in sunlight the shadows will always run parallel with one another “

if you believe that - you are as stupid [ or dishonest ] as he is [ delete as applicable ]

PS - go outside and look at real shadows - you might learn something

yorkshirelad

spartacus699

Makes you wonder if the China rover is real too? Hard to say. I think all these space programs are just a ploy to steal tax payer money. Biggest scheme going. For ever billion you've spent on space missions, say 100k of that has gone toward the hollywood production you get to see, the other 9900k goes into both secret Mil-ind complex programs and just gets shipped into offshore accounts of the elitists. That's my guess. China has probably just started to figure out the scam and started using it as well.

Ah but this is where that logic fails miserably. China does not need to fake ANYTHING in order to use ANY amount of money for ANY purpose. It is a single party state ie a dictatorship. If you disagree with the state you spend a long time in jail.

It is ironic that such a form a government actually proves the exact opposite i.e. man can send robotic probes to the moon. Given that the US and Europe have far more experience in these technologies surely it should come as no surprise that those countries are able to send probes further than the moon i.e. Mars, asteroids, mercury, a comet! etc etc.

Now, what I will concede is that an awful lot of those Apollo photos are perfect....too perfect. You only have to look at the discarded photos of a professional photographer to realise that 90-95% of photos NEVER get published because they are crap. Also take into consideration that a professional photographer has 10 ungloved fingers, no helmet, ability to focus etc etc .....sheesh..... I can fully believe there are staged photos in order for the Apollo program to continue to have public support. Imagine the interest if the only photos were out of focus, grainy, poorly framed images.

Ya I totally agree. Just look at any of the heist movies out there. Look at any stage magic show. It's all slight of hand. And or it's compartmentalized. so even the people say for example working in the control room might believe that they are seeing the rover on the moon, on mars, on whatever, and yet it's just out in some desert or in a warehouse. Even the astronaughts might have been doped up and they might have thought they went to the moon. All it would take is a bit of a date rape drug and they would have no clue where they are or where they went. and you mention the photos and the video, same thing. not to mention that they used old fashioned camera film. That would not work in space. it would be ruined by radiation before they reached the moon, get serious.

reply to post by spartacus699

not to mention that they used old fashioned camera film. That would not work in space. it would be ruined by radiation before they reached the moon, get serious.

Like parallel shadows, another dumbest of the dumb claims

Yes, China does not have to siphon money from tax. The government decides and does as it sees fit. Also they have recently developed their own space station and done space walks.

The previous 2 Chang'e missions were about the moon too I believe and the Chang'e 2 flew around the Moon and took some images which are published now. I agree, it took some months for them to be released, but I think they are out there somewhere for the science community.

When you have spent so much effort and money on developing your own space missions, you want your own scientists to make the first use of the products.

What slightly bugs me is that they make cgi movies and inteleave them with real footage to make it look better (particularly of the spacecraft flying through space and seen from another perspective) and it is not always clear to the populus which is which. OK, so the news channel is partly entertainment and partly informational but the boundaries are becoming blurred.

reply to post by Hijinx


Well wind was the wrong word....it does have atmosphere and erosion....

Wind is the flow of gases that compose the atmosphere of a planet. On Earth, wind consists of the bulk movement of air. In outer space, solar wind is the movement of gases or charged particles from the sun through space, while planetary wind is the outgassing of light chemical elements from a planet's atmosphere into space.

The atmosphere of the Moon is very tenuous and insignificant in comparison with that of the Earth. One source of the lunar atmosphere is outgassing: the release of gases such as radon and helium that originate from radioactive decay within the crust and mantle. Another important source is the bombardment of the lunar surface by micrometeorites, the solar wind, and sunlight, in a process known as sputtering. Gases that are released by sputtering can either:

be re-implanted into the regolith as a result of the Moon's gravity;
be lost to space either by solar radiation pressure or, if the gases are ionized, by being swept away in the solar wind's magnetic field.
The elements sodium (Na) and potassium (K) have been detected using Earth-based spectroscopic methods, whereas the isotopes radon-222 and polonium-210 have been inferred from data obtained by the Lunar Prospector alpha particle spectrometer. Argon-40, helium-4, oxygen and/or methane (CH4), nitrogen gas (N2) and/or carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) were detected by in-suit detectors placed by the Apollo astronauts.

The average daytime abundances of the elements known to be present in the lunar atmosphere, in atoms per cubic centimeter, are as follows:

Argon: 40,000
Helium: 2,000-40,000
Sodium: 70
Potassium: 17
Hydrogen: less than 17

This yields approximately 80,000 total atoms per cubic centimeter, marginally higher than the quantity posited to exist in the atmosphere of Mercury. While this greatly exceeds the density of the solar wind, which is usually on the order of just a few protons per cubic centimeter, the lunar atmosphere is less than one hundred trillionth the density of the Earth's atmosphere at sea level. The Moon is usually considered to not have an atmosphere, as it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment given the high rate at which the atmosphere is lost to space (solar wind and outgasing are not primary components of the Earth's, or any stable atmosphere yet known).

The Moon also appears to have a tenuous atmosphere of moving dust particles constantly leaping up from and falling back to the Moon's surface, giving rise to a "dust atmosphere" that looks static but is composed of dust particles in constant motion. The term "Moon fountain" has been used to describe this effect by analogy with the stream of molecules of water in a fountain following a ballistic trajectory but appearing static due to the constancy of the stream. According to the model recently proposed by Timothy J. Stubbs, Richard R. Vondrak, and William M. Farrell of the Laboratory for Extraterrestrial Physics at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, this is caused by electrostatic levitation. On the daylit side of the Moon, solar ultraviolet and X-ray radiation is so energetic that it knocks electrons out of atoms and molecules in the lunar soil. Positive charges build up until the tiniest particles of lunar dust (measuring 1 micrometre and smaller) are repelled from the surface and lofted anywhere from meters to kilometers high, with the smallest particles reaching the highest altitudes. Eventually they fall back toward the surface where the process is repeated over and over again. On the night side the dust is negatively charged by electrons in the solar wind. Indeed, the fountain model suggests that the night side would charge up to higher voltages than the day side, possibly launching dust particles to higher velocities and altitudes. This effect could be further enhanced during the portion of the Moon's orbit where it passes through Earth's magnetotail; see Magnetic field of the Moon for more detail. On the terminator there could be significant horizontal electric fields forming between the day and night areas, resulting in horizontal dust transport - a form of "moon storm".

So although there is no "wind" on the moon, it does have what might be considered "weather" :-)

This is from here....answers.yahoo.com...

reply to post by dainoyfb


This is the technical of it....wind was the wrong word.....the dirt does move....Is that better???

answers.yahoo.com...

Wind is the flow of gases that compose the atmosphere of a planet. On Earth, wind consists of the bulk movement of air. In outer space, solar wind is the movement of gases or charged particles from the sun through space, while planetary wind is the outgassing of light chemical elements from a planet's atmosphere into space.

The atmosphere of the Moon is very tenuous and insignificant in comparison with that of the Earth. One source of the lunar atmosphere is outgassing: the release of gases such as radon and helium that originate from radioactive decay within the crust and mantle. Another important source is the bombardment of the lunar surface by micrometeorites, the solar wind, and sunlight, in a process known as sputtering. Gases that are released by sputtering can either:

be re-implanted into the regolith as a result of the Moon's gravity;
be lost to space either by solar radiation pressure or, if the gases are ionized, by being swept away in the solar wind's magnetic field.
The elements sodium (Na) and potassium (K) have been detected using Earth-based spectroscopic methods, whereas the isotopes radon-222 and polonium-210 have been inferred from data obtained by the Lunar Prospector alpha particle spectrometer. Argon-40, helium-4, oxygen and/or methane (CH4), nitrogen gas (N2) and/or carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) were detected by in-suit detectors placed by the Apollo astronauts.

The average daytime abundances of the elements known to be present in the lunar atmosphere, in atoms per cubic centimeter, are as follows:

Argon: 40,000
Helium: 2,000-40,000
Sodium: 70
Potassium: 17
Hydrogen: less than 17

This yields approximately 80,000 total atoms per cubic centimeter, marginally higher than the quantity posited to exist in the atmosphere of Mercury. While this greatly exceeds the density of the solar wind, which is usually on the order of just a few protons per cubic centimeter, the lunar atmosphere is less than one hundred trillionth the density of the Earth's atmosphere at sea level. The Moon is usually considered to not have an atmosphere, as it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment given the high rate at which the atmosphere is lost to space (solar wind and outgasing are not primary components of the Earth's, or any stable atmosphere yet known).

The Moon also appears to have a tenuous atmosphere of moving dust particles constantly leaping up from and falling back to the Moon's surface, giving rise to a "dust atmosphere" that looks static but is composed of dust particles in constant motion. The term "Moon fountain" has been used to describe this effect by analogy with the stream of molecules of water in a fountain following a ballistic trajectory but appearing static due to the constancy of the stream. According to the model recently proposed by Timothy J. Stubbs, Richard R. Vondrak, and William M. Farrell of the Laboratory for Extraterrestrial Physics at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, this is caused by electrostatic levitation. On the daylit side of the Moon, solar ultraviolet and X-ray radiation is so energetic that it knocks electrons out of atoms and molecules in the lunar soil. Positive charges build up until the tiniest particles of lunar dust (measuring 1 micrometre and smaller) are repelled from the surface and lofted anywhere from meters to kilometers high, with the smallest particles reaching the highest altitudes. Eventually they fall back toward the surface where the process is repeated over and over again. On the night side the dust is negatively charged by electrons in the solar wind. Indeed, the fountain model suggests that the night side would charge up to higher voltages than the day side, possibly launching dust particles to higher velocities and altitudes. This effect could be further enhanced during the portion of the Moon's orbit where it passes through Earth's magnetotail; see Magnetic field of the Moon for more detail. On the terminator there could be significant horizontal electric fields forming between the day and night areas, resulting in horizontal dust transport - a form of "moon storm".

So although there is no "wind" on the moon, it does have what might be considered "weather" :-)

LaElvis
reply to post by spartacus699

 

Have you ever heard of wind erosion?? Go anywhere on Earth and look back 44 years......I doubt if it looks the same!!!

Ummm Are you joking? Sarcasm? Wind erosion, on the Moon? Really?

The color images from the Chinese rover match up pretty closely to the Clemtine Mission color images of the moon from '94.
Most images we see of the moon are grayscaled or desaturated. It's very rare to see the moon represented in full color! So glad they didn't take the popular route and release the footage in black and white.

reply to post by qmantoo


ya but money is energy. it's actual energy stored in currency. Why wouldn't a country try and siphon off that energy in exchange for fakery. that's what mobs do to sheeple. Why would a criminal organization actaully give there slaves info on a moon landing unless it was faked to steal money? To me it makes zero sense. Unless you actually believe the g-v is a good entity that has your best interstes in mind with nothing but roses, bunnies and tulips inside ever office they have. i don't see it. The g0v's of today make the nazi's look like quire boys! There job is to steal from and control sheelp thats it

reply to post by spartacus699


this is the second time you have posted this irrelevant garbage

it has been demonstrated that the claims by your sources regarding shadows are patently false

have you accepted this fact - or do we have to conclude that you are a fundamentally dishonest as your sources ?

ignorant_ape
reply to post by spartacus699

 

this is the second time you have posted this irrelevant garbage

it has been demonstrated that the claims by your sources regarding shadows are patently false

have you accepted this fact - or do we have to conclude that you are a fundamentally dishonest as your sources ?

they didn't go to the moon. They went to a tv studio in Russia

reply to post by spartacus699


before moving blithely to another absurd claim , lets put convergent shadows to rest :

do you accept that convergent shadows are not any evidence of fakery in the appollo photographic record ?

if yes - we can move on and further do you accept that you were lied to by your OP sources ?

if no - explain your reasoning

ignorant_ape
reply to post by spartacus699

 

before moving blithely to another absurd claim , lets put convergent shadows to rest :

do you accept that convergent shadows are not any evidence of fakery in the appollo photographic record ?

if yes - we can move on and further do you accept that you were lied to by your OP sources ?

if no - explain your reasoning

Neither of us has been to the moon. Neither of us knows what rover missions are real in order to analyse any photos (that's if they could even take photos and safely get them back). So how would we know what way the shadows go on the moon? Shadows are not a concern. I'd like to know how they got threw the van allen belts safely and without getting sick and also how the radiation didn't destroy the camera film?

I'd like to ask some of the experts here something.

When the Lunar Lander is on it's descent what does it use to slow itself down before it hits the dirt?

stevcolx
I'd like to ask some of the experts here something.

When the Lunar Lander is on it's descent what does it use to slow itself down before it hits the dirt?

Sorry theres a weird alien word in your above question, first paragraph, in between 'the' and 'here'...what is that word? Never seen that on here before. Good luck with getting your answer though. (they used a variable thrust hypogolic rocket engine).

doorhandle

stevcolx
I'd like to ask some of the experts here something.

When the Lunar Lander is on it's descent what does it use to slow itself down before it hits the dirt?

Sorry theres a weird alien word in your above question, first paragraph, in between 'the' and 'here'...what is that word? Never seen that on here before. Good luck with getting your answer though. (they used a variable thrust hypogolic rocket engine).

edit on 1620142014Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:34:01 -060012pm116ThursdayAmerica/Chicago by doorhandle because: (no reason given)

Or according to some on here, string, held up by Stanley Kubrick..

Phage
Yup. It's among the dumbest of the dumb hoax claims.

Must be two Suns.

You would do yourself well to understand what a vanishing point is. The picture you posted is--brace yourself--an optical illusion because, as long things that are parallel extend into the distance, they appear to be coming closer together. In actuality, they are still parallel.

The vanishing point in the moon image in question now becomes the light source itself, which the lines correctly show would be just off-camera if the angle of the shadows is accurate. If the light source (the vanishing point) were the sun, there's absolutely zero realistic chance that the shadows in the image would have the angles that they do.

That said, when I look at the moon image with questioned shadow angles, I notice that the rocks in the foreground (bottom of image) seem to be protruding from sloped sand/dust, which would create an illusion that the shadows are being cast at a skewed angle from the light source.

But seriously, read up on vanishing points and how the location of a light source affects the angle of shadows. You may just go ahead and surprise yourself that the "dumbest of the dumb" part of your response was the picture you used to try and illustrate your point.

Just sayin'.