|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: apollo, evidence, hoax, proving |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#91
April 24th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
More evidence proving Apollo Hoax
|
| Ads |
|
#92
April 24th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,alt.astronomy
|
|||
|
|||
|
More evidence proving Apollo Hoax
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 22, 8:13 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Apr 21, 7:42 pm, wrote: No matter how factual the case may be, most people (especially those who claim to be educated in physics/math) simply won't consider it. These people are simply weak-minded and only want to believe what makes them happy. Like a child foolishly insisting that the tooth fairy really exists when confronted with a pantheon of objective reality. They are brown-nosed minions of their Third Reich kind, and for the most part Semitic to boot. Continued lies and exclusion of evidence is what makes them happy campers. It's all very MI5/CIA cloak and dagger. Paranoid delusions are so fun to watch from a distance. Yup. No case so bad that Brad Guth cannot make it worse. -- --Bryan
|
|
#94
April 25th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,alt.astronomy
|
|||
|
|||
|
More evidence proving Apollo Hoax
"BradGuth" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 11:05 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: "BradGuth" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 6:14 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: It's only going to get better, as time will eventually have the JAXA/ Selene orbiting at merely 10 km, giving us a raw 1m/pixel look at those supposed NASA/Apollo landing sites.. . -BradGuth China is planning on doing the same reduced orbital range, and thus offering more than sufficient raw resolution. . -BradGuth So, no matters how reliable the raw pixels are, and of no matters how many images are stacked or having been properly resampled, you don't believe in anything that's enlarged unless it's of inert eye-candy. Are you also Muslim? None of your ****ing business. Why are you speaking for Eric Gisse? Of course 100% of all cosmic eye-candy pictures that are published for public review are of those stacked, resampled and colorized to death, whereas oddly that's perfectly OK by your hocus-pocus standards. How interesting. . -BradGuth *********************************** I went through all this stuff withGuthabout 6 months ago - I calculated the size of a telescope that would be needed to even to show a single pixel variation from background albedo - its about ten times larger than the current resolving ability of terrestrial/LEO telescopes. When shown to be wrong, he called me a Jew and started spouting abuse. Not that this is in any way directly relevant to whether the Apollo missions were a fake - nobody would bother using the world's largest telescopes to look for a single pixel variation in lunar albedo to try and prove that the Apollo landings happened. It would be like chartering a long range aircraft to fly around the world to prove the earth isn't flat. He is simply a crank. No point in discussing the issue with him; when proved wrong he will simply change the subject, rather than changing his position. Are we being silly? Not "we". Just you. Why would a bright and shiny Apollo item as set upon a physically dark moon not yield a noticeably brighter than average pixel? We went through this before. No, as once again you have bullied your out-of-context way through through this without one bit of objective evidence. Except that I provided the calculations which show that the remnants of the LEM would not be visible. Something as bright and shiny upon the nearly coal dark and nasty surface is going to make a given 10 meter resolution pixel light up rather nicely, and of the quality JAXA 10 meter resolution TC is in fact going to record just that. So you say. I did some calculations for you which showed the opposite. Perhaps you could identify an error in my own calculations, or provide alternate calculations which show otherwise. So, with countless tens of thousands of archived images thus far, it seems JAXA/Selene has come up empty handed, and for that matter never once having depicted the .65~.75 albedo worthy terrain of where several of our supposed missions landed. I was unaware that high resolution images of the landing sites had been made after the landings. Where can they be found? What was the resolution of the images? Can I have a look? In short, have you any evidence that what you claim is true - that photographs exist with sufficient resolution to identify the parts of the LEM, but that they show that the LEM doesn't exist (that is what you are claiming, right?). The best resolution of terrestrial telescopes results in a pixel area of about 100 sq metres. The bit of the LEM left on the moon is perhaps 10 sq metres. Its likely to have a dust coating, and it throws a shadow (also part of the pixel). So you might (back of an envelope) assume that this 10 sq metres is twice as bright as the other 90 sqm in the pixel. This would give you - at a generous estimate - about a 10% brighter pixel than you would expect. However, its very obvious that the variations between pixels varies by far, far more than 10%, as the natural topography of the lunar surface means that some areas are more brightly lit than others (as some are directly facing the sun, but others are at an angle and hence receive less incident light). You can confirm this with a cheap pair of binoculars. So the variation from having the remainder of the LEM still on the moon is orders of magnitude less than the natural variation in the apparent brightness of different patches of the ground, and hence would be impossible to extract from this "noise" deriving from other topographic differences. Got it this time? We got the part of your being a born-again liar. Where do you think I lied? I can assure you that what I wrote is what I believe; it may be wrong - nobody's perfect - but it certainly wasn't an intentional lie. If you do believe that what I have said is wrong, you need to identify exactly where. I am always interested in learning new facts about optics. . - Brad Guth
|
|
#95
April 25th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,alt.astronomy
|
|||
|
|||
|
More evidence proving Apollo Hoax
On Apr 24, 6:25 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote: "BradGuth" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 11:05 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: "BradGuth" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 6:14 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: It's only going to get better, as time will eventually have the JAXA/ Selene orbiting at merely 10 km, giving us a raw 1m/pixel look at those supposed NASA/Apollo landing sites.. . -BradGuth China is planning on doing the same reduced orbital range, and thus offering more than sufficient raw resolution. . -BradGuth So, no matters how reliable the raw pixels are, and of no matters how many images are stacked or having been properly resampled, you don't believe in anything that's enlarged unless it's of inert eye-candy. Are you also Muslim? None of your ****ing business. Why are you speaking for Eric Gisse? Of course 100% of all cosmic eye-candy pictures that are published for public review are of those stacked, resampled and colorized to death, whereas oddly that's perfectly OK by your hocus-pocus standards. How interesting. . -BradGuth *********************************** I went through all this stuff withGuthabout 6 months ago - I calculated the size of a telescope that would be needed to even to show a single pixel variation from background albedo - its about ten times larger than the current resolving ability of terrestrial/LEO telescopes. When shown to be wrong, he called me a Jew and started spouting abuse. Not that this is in any way directly relevant to whether the Apollo missions were a fake - nobody would bother using the world's largest telescopes to look for a single pixel variation in lunar albedo to try and prove that the Apollo landings happened. It would be like chartering a long range aircraft to fly around the world to prove the earth isn't flat. He is simply a crank. No point in discussing the issue with him; when proved wrong he will simply change the subject, rather than changing his position. Are we being silly? Not "we". Just you. Why would a bright and shiny Apollo item as set upon a physically dark moon not yield a noticeably brighter than average pixel? We went through this before. No, as once again you have bullied your out-of-context way through through this without one bit of objective evidence. Except that I provided the calculations which show that the remnants of the LEM would not be visible. Something as bright and shiny upon the nearly coal dark and nasty surface is going to make a given 10 meter resolution pixel light up rather nicely, and of the quality JAXA 10 meter resolution TC is in fact going to record just that. So you say. I did some calculations for you which showed the opposite. Perhaps you could identify an error in my own calculations, or provide alternate calculations which show otherwise. So, with countless tens of thousands of archived images thus far, it seems JAXA/Selene has come up empty handed, and for that matter never once having depicted the .65~.75 albedo worthy terrain of where several of our supposed missions landed. I was unaware that high resolution images of the landing sites had been made after the landings. Where can they be found? What was the resolution of the images? Can I have a look? In short, have you any evidence that what you claim is true - that photographs exist with sufficient resolution to identify the parts of the LEM, but that they show that the LEM doesn't exist (that is what you are claiming, right?). The best resolution of terrestrial telescopes results in a pixel area of about 100 sq metres. The bit of the LEM left on the moon is perhaps 10 sq metres. Its likely to have a dust coating, and it throws a shadow (also part of the pixel). So you might (back of an envelope) assume that this 10 sq metres is twice as bright as the other 90 sqm in the pixel. This would give you - at a generous estimate - about a 10% brighter pixel than you would expect. However, its very obvious that the variations between pixels varies by far, far more than 10%, as the natural topography of the lunar surface means that some areas are more brightly lit than others (as some are directly facing the sun, but others are at an angle and hence receive less incident light). You can confirm this with a cheap pair of binoculars. So the variation from having the remainder of the LEM still on the moon is orders of magnitude less than the natural variation in the apparent brightness of different patches of the ground, and hence would be impossible to extract from this "noise" deriving from other topographic differences. Got it this time? We got the part of your being a born-again liar. Where do you think I lied? I can assure you that what I wrote is what I believe; it may be wrong - nobody's perfect - but it certainly wasn't an intentional lie. If you do believe that what I have said is wrong, you need to identify exactly where. I am always interested in learning new facts about optics. . - Brad Guth You proven squat. You even exclude or having banished those soft modifications to KECK, and of green laser illuminated targets that I'd outlined, and you have lately excluded all that's JAXA in the same fart. Besides, we can always tell when you're lying to us, because we can see your butt-cheeks flapping. Guess what bozo the brown-nosed clown, it seems armatures have long since published images of our solar illuminated moon along with other planets in the exact same FOV and exposure. Gee whiz, wonder what Venus should have looked like from the physically dark moon, or for that matter a few other pesky planets, and how about the Sirius star system to boot? .. - Brad Guth
|
|
#96
April 25th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,alt.astronomy
|
|||
|
|||
|
More evidence proving Apollo Hoax
Why the lack of Usenet/Group interest in anything JAXA SELENE?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...15b3 e7ee30f9 Brad Guth On Apr 24, 6:25 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: "BradGuth" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 11:05 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: "BradGuth" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 6:14 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: It's only going to get better, as time will eventually have the JAXA/ Selene orbiting at merely 10 km, giving us a raw 1m/pixel look at those supposed NASA/Apollo landing sites.. . -BradGuth China is planning on doing the same reduced orbital range, and thus offering more than sufficient raw resolution. . -BradGuth So, no matters how reliable the raw pixels are, and of no matters how many images are stacked or having been properly resampled, you don't believe in anything that's enlarged unless it's of inert eye-candy. Are you also Muslim? None of your ****ing business. Why are you speaking for Eric Gisse? Of course 100% of all cosmic eye-candy pictures that are published for public review are of those stacked, resampled and colorized to death, whereas oddly that's perfectly OK by your hocus-pocus standards. How interesting. . -BradGuth *********************************** I went through all this stuff withGuthabout 6 months ago - I calculated the size of a telescope that would be needed to even to show a single pixel variation from background albedo - its about ten times larger than the current resolving ability of terrestrial/LEO telescopes. When shown to be wrong, he called me a Jew and started spouting abuse. Not that this is in any way directly relevant to whether the Apollo missions were a fake - nobody would bother using the world's largest telescopes to look for a single pixel variation in lunar albedo to try and prove that the Apollo landings happened. It would be like chartering a long range aircraft to fly around the world to prove the earth isn't flat. He is simply a crank. No point in discussing the issue with him; when proved wrong he will simply change the subject, rather than changing his position. Are we being silly? Not "we". Just you. Why would a bright and shiny Apollo item as set upon a physically dark moon not yield a noticeably brighter than average pixel? We went through this before. No, as once again you have bullied your out-of-context way through through this without one bit of objective evidence. Except that I provided the calculations which show that the remnants of the LEM would not be visible. Something as bright and shiny upon the nearly coal dark and nasty surface is going to make a given 10 meter resolution pixel light up rather nicely, and of the quality JAXA 10 meter resolution TC is in fact going to record just that. So you say. I did some calculations for you which showed the opposite. Perhaps you could identify an error in my own calculations, or provide alternate calculations which show otherwise. So, with countless tens of thousands of archived images thus far, it seems JAXA/Selene has come up empty handed, and for that matter never once having depicted the .65~.75 albedo worthy terrain of where several of our supposed missions landed. I was unaware that high resolution images of the landing sites had been made after the landings. Where can they be found? What was the resolution of the images? Can I have a look? In short, have you any evidence that what you claim is true - that photographs exist with sufficient resolution to identify the parts of the LEM, but that they show that the LEM doesn't exist (that is what you are claiming, right?). The best resolution of terrestrial telescopes results in a pixel area of about 100 sq metres. The bit of the LEM left on the moon is perhaps 10 sq metres. Its likely to have a dust coating, and it throws a shadow (also part of the pixel). So you might (back of an envelope) assume that this 10 sq metres is twice as bright as the other 90 sqm in the pixel. This would give you - at a generous estimate - about a 10% brighter pixel than you would expect. However, its very obvious that the variations between pixels varies by far, far more than 10%, as the natural topography of the lunar surface means that some areas are more brightly lit than others (as some are directly facing the sun, but others are at an angle and hence receive less incident light). You can confirm this with a cheap pair of binoculars. So the variation from having the remainder of the LEM still on the moon is orders of magnitude less than the natural variation in the apparent brightness of different patches of the ground, and hence would be impossible to extract from this "noise" deriving from other topographic differences. Got it this time? We got the part of your being a born-again liar. Where do you think I lied? I can assure you that what I wrote is what I believe; it may be wrong - nobody's perfect - but it certainly wasn't an intentional lie. If you do believe that what I have said is wrong, you need to identify exactly where. I am always interested in learning new facts about optics. . - Brad Guth Why the lack of usenet interest in anything JAXA SELENE? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...15b3 e7ee30f9 Brad Guth
|
|
#97
April 25th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,alt.astronomy
|
|||
|
|||
|
More evidence proving Apollo Hoax
On Apr 22, 12:04 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 21, 10:53 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: The task could be achieved through unmanned missions not necessarily short men painted green. shrug What "unmanned missions" ? Missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van Allen Belts. shrug What is the nonsense about the Soviet spy antenna records? Is that where you got these little green men from? How do you suppose these Apollo astronauts with 0.25g/cm^2 of shield is going to come up totally unharmed after being bombarded with 3E-14 solar mass per year of energy? Little green men reported from unclassified Soviet antenna spy whatever archive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind The higher energy particles would damage your DNA with higher probability of causing some sorts of cancer in a few years. The lower- energy ones would manifest shorter term illness. It is not advisable to be bombarded with 3E-14 solar mass per year of energy at earth’s orbit with just 0.25g/cm^2 of shielding from the command module. shrug Oh this again? You were proven wrong with the actual ACE/SOHO spacecraft data and here you are repeating the same **** again. Oh, the same garbage from fat Gisse again. You were pointed out of your bullsh*t errors many times over. Get lost. Don’t come back before you actually understand the stuff you came up with. In the meantime, the Chinese are ‘going back to the moon’. I wonder if they will play the game along and be content with being second. This would be very easy to do. All you need is a decent special effect director. Or would they expose and embarrass NASA?
|
|
#98
April 25th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,alt.astronomy
|
|||
|
|||
|
More evidence proving Apollo Hoax
On Apr 25, 12:40 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:04 am, Eric Gisse wrote: On Apr 21, 10:53 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: The task could be achieved through unmanned missions not necessarily short men painted green. shrug What "unmanned missions" ? Missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van Allen Belts. shrug What is the nonsense about the Soviet spy antenna records? Is that where you got these little green men from? How do you suppose these Apollo astronauts with 0.25g/cm^2 of shield is going to come up totally unharmed after being bombarded with 3E-14 solar mass per year of energy? Little green men reported from unclassified Soviet antenna spy whatever archive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind The higher energy particles would damage your DNA with higher probability of causing some sorts of cancer in a few years. The lower- energy ones would manifest shorter term illness. It is not advisable to be bombarded with 3E-14 solar mass per year of energy at earth’s orbit with just 0.25g/cm^2 of shielding from the command module. shrug Oh this again? You were proven wrong with the actual ACE/SOHO spacecraft data and here you are repeating the same **** again. Oh, the same garbage from fat Gisse again. You were pointed out of your bullsh*t errors many times over. Get lost. Don’t come back before you actually understand the stuff you came up with. In the meantime, the Chinese are ‘going back to the moon’. I wonder if they will play the game along and be content with being second. This would be very easy to do. All you need is a decent special effect director. Or would they expose and embarrass NASA? China could bring their existing lunar mapping and science mission down to within 10 km, in so much as accomplishing better than 1 m/ pixel resolution images of our Apollo landing sights, of which would offer as much information as necessary, and they could do this as part of their opening Olympic games or shortly thereafter. Technically, in optical/telephoto resolution from the altitude of 10 km could bring home the real thing, of showing us each of those final downrange paths and of their supposed soft-landing sites, or perhaps those of the not so soft, as hard-landings or impact deployments of our unmanned/robotic units. . - Brad Guth
|
|
#99
April 25th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
|
More evidence proving Apollo Hoax
On Apr 24, 6:29*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
Am I the only one who is impressed by the sheer complexity of the arguments supporting the conspiracy theory?... "The treacherous are ever distrustful, seeking out conspiracies" -- Lord of the Rings (slight paraphrase) Complexity is evasion from simple truths. One cannot deny what's directly in the line of sight, plainly visible for all to see... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ts_on_the_Moon The analogy would be for a conspiracy nut-case to proclaim (on a soapbox at noontime on a cloudless day) that there is no sun and that assertions to the contrary are simply a ploy by a colluding clique of astronomers to boondoggle the public into supporting solar energy (which, according to the conspiracy theorist, would then actually be a secret programme to install 2-ways microwave sensors and transmitters throughout the land to control the public's brainwaves, since there would be no sun for the solar energy to be solar of)..
|
|
#100
April 26th 08
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,alt.astronomy
|
|||
|
|||
|
More evidence proving Apollo Hoax
"BradGuth" wrote in message ... Why the lack of Usenet/Group interest in anything JAXA SELENE? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...15b3 e7ee30f9 Brad Guth That link goes to one of your rants on a different forum. I don't think Usenet lacks interest in Jaxa; I think Usenet lacks interest in Brad Guth. HTH
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| More evidence proving Apollo Hoax | schoenfeld.one@gmail.com | Physics - General Discussion | 375 | 2 Weeks Ago 12:49 PM |
| Apollo XIIIX hoax | Ken S. Tucker | Physics - General Discussion | 26 | December 29th 05 10:15 AM |
| Apollo 13 Hoax??? | JKF | Physics - General Discussion | 6 | March 31st 05 08:43 PM |
| Any scientific evidence proving me wrong? | Creative Music Synth [220] | Physics - General Discussion | 0 | February 16th 04 06:16 PM |
| The Apollo Hoax FAQ | Nathan Jones | Physics - General Discussion | 12 | November 6th 03 05:58 AM |
Linear Mode
