SUNLIGHT & THINGS

[Ophiolite]

Artorius, both you and atinymonkey (I think) have raised interesting points in relation to the apparent 'double lighting' of the landing site photogrpahs. At my leisure I may look into this further, but don't expect me to reach a conclusion this side of Armageddon.

That said I would like to try to understand why you have chosen to explain this anomaly as being due to a conspiracy. Let me expand on this somewhat. Science relishes anomalies because they lead, eventaully, to new discoveries, some trivial and some fundamental. When confronted with an anomaly it is generally accepted that the application of Occam's razor is a wise process. In short, we should favour the simplest hypothesis.

It seems to me that the simplest explantion in this case is to seek for a physical explanation directly related to the photograph. [it occurs to me in passing that virtually all our photographic experience is based within the Earth;s atmosphere, so we should not be too surprsied if unusual phenomena arise outside it.]

It seems to you that the simplest explanation is to invoke a conspiracy. I suppose I am interested in what leads you to this particular choice. If this attempt to understand your psychology is intrusive please say so, but I would be interested in your answer.

[Sayonara]

I very much doubt Artorius modelled the relative positions of the moon, sun and earth before making his claim that the objects illuminated in shadow are evidence of a conspiracy, which would suggest he is just picking the "theory" he wants to believe in.

 

Let him defend it to the very hilt if he wants to.

[Ophiolite]

Quite possibly, but I am intrigued by the process by which people decide to believe A rather than B. Often, I suspect, good science, done by good scientists, begins with an almost random decision to go with A or B. (Of course, good science then requires that the consequences of A be thoroughly tested.)

 

You rightly point out that Artorius probably hasn't modelled the positions of earth/sun/moon to justify his claim. But neither have we. It seems reasonable that the standards set for one side of the argument, should be the same for the other.

[Sayonara]

I have not made a claim either way, so I am not required to model anything.

 

My contention was that Artorius' reasoning is flawed, not that B is wrong and A is right.

[atinymonkey]

You see dark shadows what are you talking about do you not get the fact im referring to pictures showing the subject material in shadow yet say the american flag on the side of the LM is clearly visible,yet the main of the craft is as it should be DARK?

 

Artorius, both you and atinymonkey (I think) have raised interesting points in relation to the apparent 'double lighting' of the landing site photogrpahs. At my leisure I may look into this further, but don't expect me to reach a conclusion this side of Armageddon.

 

I do have in issue with some of the photos and the dual shadows produced, but it's not really that serious. However, I do not have an issue with the objects that are lit indirectly in the photographs. The objects that stand in the shadows are lit not because of a second light source (as in an artificial lamp), but reflection from the light on the surface of the Moon. As the surface of the Moon is white, and the suits are white, the light reflects off the white objects and is picked up by the camera which higher definition than the other objects in the shadow. The use of reflective light to illuminate objects in shadow is a common process in photography, and is taken for granted to be the case for the Apollo photos.

 

I draw the line between pointing out some photos look odd, and inventing reasons to show others are.

[us.2u]

Looking at debates for & against especially from you scientists who are clearly above my intellect & learning I see there are still doubts even in the supreme intelligence sector i.e. "You Scienctists" all I am is an ordinary layman sceptic at times & just question abnormalities as they arise I never wish to question personal feelings but just deal with facts last night I viewed the conspiracy theory of the hoax landing yet again with a totaly neutral view yes some things were hard to make sense as it seemed like hidden truths on both sides but then fact can indeed be stranger than fiction "einestein", unravelled & untangled a lot a lot of mysteries & solved a lot of enigmas not all though. I believe with the "lunar landing", hoax or reality we all need to research as a team & forget emotions but just deal with hard evidence; with the evidence I've researched, in my opinion I believe the lunar landing was "factual" now doe's anyone have much data on active worlds i.e. active volcanos & what of Titan?

[us.2u]

That is some possibiltys but I guess there are so many unexplained factors one I've thought of is the relavance of time as we know it, & not as we know it I wonder even if on our planet could it be possible for time zones or measures that we don't understand "yet" could this planet sustain life in a different dimension & time right here on this planet & just maybe when we think we've heard a voice a noise or whatever we haven't imagined it after all but that time & dimension maybe leaking into our own it sounds far fetched but so did unacountable facts throughout the centuaries. Even if this were remotely true to travel into another time warp that may or may not exist on our own planet would be impossible until we delve further into understanding. I even wonder if ghosts are of a different time warp & dimension of our own enviroment "animals", seem to sense unexplained presences so maybe there might be a clue there. A ghost has no dna so far as far as we know I guess there is no chemistry makeup but maybe we need different formulas for research or I'm just plain bonkers...us.2u

[Artorius]

okay sayanora my fault for reading your posts the wrong way,sometimes reading posts i may miss the sarcasm and see it as flaming.Could we start again buddie, Ive tried viewing the posts but cannot see any direct questions to me in 22.If you would like to ask me something go ahead and i will try to post you a factual reply.

[Sayonara]

okay sayanora my fault for reading your posts the wrong way,sometimes reading posts i may miss the sarcasm and see it as flaming.Could we start again buddie, Ive tried viewing the posts but cannot see any direct questions to me in 22.If you would like to ask me something go ahead and i will try to post you a factual reply.

For my part, I was not so much asking you questions as pointing out the holes in your arguments.

 

Except for "Does it not occur to you that the accuracy of the planned descent in such an underpowered craft as a command module is going to be strongly related to the gravitational field of the body it is landing on?"

 

That was a rehtorical question, and another way of saying "Deorbiting to the Earth's surface is going to be a lot trickier than deorbiting to the moon's surface, because the gravitational pull is six times stronger."

 

You also have to consider that the fluid properties of the Earth's atmosphere will affect the descent of the module. It's not a terribly aerodynamic vehicle.

[us.2u]

Lunar Questions:- How long did it take the astronauts to reach the moon from Earth What was the average speed of their craft?Who made their engines & what are they & how do they work? What is the escape velocity of the moon how fast did the earth craft go to blast off from the moon? How doe's one navigate spacecraft? On re-entry into the earths atmosphere what stops friction burning up the earh craft? After all these years why hasen't Neil Armstrong told the media of his amazing adventure?Which I believe would be a lot more interseting than star-wars This would be a mind boggling exciting t.v. documentry why is so little known about it? Who made the communication devices?I thought 1960's radio worked by signal waves bouncing off our earths ionsphere? & satellite communication (micro-wave) still in it's infancy...I thought whoever was responsible for making such reliable communincation equipment would seize the oppertunity as a great marketing ploy for their products who made their spacesuits etc. we all know John,paul,George,& Ringo are the beatles yet say Neil, Buzz etc & most will say..WHO? sad isn't...us.2u

[us.2u]

Can anyone out-there give me or know details to my lunar questions "My previous thread?" or are we all in the dark so to speak? Please someone do you have the answers?...us.2u

[ed84c]

the craft has special ceramic tiles which dont conduct heat easily at all. I think it maybe 50000mph but im not sure.Neil Armstrong prob. has made loads of docs about it.

[Ophiolite]

Can anyone out-there give me or know details to my lunar questions "My previous thread?" or are we all in the dark so to speak? Please someone do you have the answers?...us.2u

Problem is you have asked so many questions that to attempt to answer them properly would take a considerable amount of time. I'll take a look at a couple for you now, and hopefuly someone else can come in too.

[Ophiolite]

Can anyone out-there give me or know details to my lunar questions "My previous thread?" or are we all in the dark so to speak? Please someone do you have the answers?...us.2u

How long did it take the astronauts to reach the moon from Earth?

Approximately three days. For example here are some details from the timeline for Apollo 12, the second manned landing.

 

The S-IVB stage was re-ignited at 19:15:14 UT on 14th November for a translunar injection burn of 5 min. 45 sec. putting the spacecraft on course for the Moon. A six minute SPS burn on 18 November at 03:47:23 UT put the Apollo 12 into lunar orbit.

So that is an elapsed time from earth orbit to lunar orbit of 3 days 8 hours 32 minutes.

You may find this site useful. It contains details of all the manned and unmanned lunar missions:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lunartimeline.html

 

What was the average speed of their craft?

The moon is roughly 230,000 miles away and it took just over three days to get there, so this might look lik a simple calculation. 230000/80.5 = 2850 mph. That, however, is misleading. The spacecraft does not move in a direct line. It sets out from earth orbit in a curve towards the point where the moon will be in just over three days time. So the distance traveled is further.

 

To get into Earth orbit the spacecraft was accelerated to 17,500 mph by the three stages of the Saturn V rocket. After a number of orbits the third stage accelerated the craft to 24,500 mph. This is sufficient to move away from Earth orbit and into the moon’s gravitational influence. At first the spacecraft slowed down, until, under the influence more of the moon than the Earth, when it accelerated again. My skills at orbital mechanics are practically non-existent, so I am unable to work out for you what the average speed may have been.

 

Who made their engines & what are they & how do they work?

I am running out of steam here. The main rocket that got them into space was the three stage Saturn V, in my opinion the finest rocket ever constructed. A marvelous beast that put more mass into Earth orbit at lower cost and with greater reliability (100%) than anything before or since.

There were smaller rockets on the CSM (Command and Service Module), for mid course corrections, for entering and leaving lunar orbit. The LM (Lunar Module) had a descent engine and an ascent engine.

You can find all kinds of technical information about these here:

www.astronautix.com

 

And you asked how they navigated. Here is a link that explains that side of things.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/ch2-4.html

[Ophiolite]

the craft has special ceramic tiles which dont conduct heat easily at all. I think it maybe 50000mph but im not sure.Neil Armstrong prob. has made loads of docs about it.

Not so. The Command Module, the only component to return to the earth had an ablative heat shield. The material was designed to peel away during re-entry carrying excess heat with it. You can see the scorched effect if you go look at one of them up close. I've seen the ones at NASA in Houston and the Science Museum in London. I know there is one in Washington [The Smithsonian?]. I don't know where the others are.

[us.2u]

Thanks Ophiolite, for the links there is so much to learn,after reading some of the links I believe beyond any doubt in my mind which was once after viewing the conspiracy lunar video that,that was just hugwash. My main interest are lunar related as I am trying to research whether indeed the moon was once a part of this planet earth; it doe's seem that way. Then I would like to travel right back to the big-bang but before then I find the jurassic period fascinates me, I think before that period was Cambrian "I'm not sure" also I wondered if any life excepting plants could have lived on this planet that don't breathe oxoygen that seems a far cry proberly not