Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15
Waspie_Dwarf

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

2,594 posts in this topic

Yep, unfortunately I made the assumption of "Surely we can observe the surface of our own Moon from here".

You're certainly not the only person who has, Insanity!

If you wanted to image a LM descent stage like the ones photographed above from low lunar orbit by extremely sophisticated high powered cameras...you would need a telescope that could image a single pea, from a distance of 700 miles! To be fair, you'd have to have that pea looked at from the Earth's surface, through the atmosphere, and out around 650 miles into space.

It's not possible today.

I imagine that one day, it may be possible, but I find myself thinking...

With pictures like those I posted from LRO, and with many many hundreds of 70mm photos like this one, taken on that surface...

21372.jpg

AS17-140-21372, taken December 13, 1972 in the Taurus Littrow region on the surface of the Moon....what do we need telescopic images for??

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're certainly not the only person who has, Insanity!

If you wanted to image a LM descent stage like the ones photographed above from low lunar orbit by extremely sophisticated high powered cameras...you would need a telescope that could image a single pea, from a distance of 700 miles! To be fair, you'd have to have that pea looked at from the Earth's surface, through the atmosphere, and out around 650 miles into space.

It's not possible today.

I imagine that one day, it may be possible, but I find myself thinking...

With pictures like those I posted from LRO, and with many many hundreds of 70mm photos like this one, taken on that surface...

21372.jpg

AS17-140-21372, taken December 13, 1972 in the Taurus Littrow region on the surface of the Moon....what do we need telescopic images for??

Have a Great YEar Mid I hope all is well with you !

See ya !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair MID, the day will come when an individual will be able to have a cheap satellite to provide live images as they please. Cubesats are the beginning of this. I can envisage the day when the individual can see whatever lunar images they like, live from an imaging platform that they control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to hold my breath!

Me either. But I do think he may briefly step up to the plate..

BTW, my intention is to go right back to basics, so initially I'll be asking Turbonium to assist me to define the concepts of:

1. 'Accepted' information

2. Information that requires proof (eg any statement that requires logical/numerical/technical proofs, cites, examples before being accepted)

and of course..

3. Handwaving.

In case it isn't clear (are you reading this, Turbs?), type 1 statements are fine, type 2 statements do require proof/cites/examples before being accepted, and type 3 statements..? well, they're completely unacceptable.

Examples:

Type 1 - here's an example of 'accepted' information...

The Moon orbits the earth on a roughly circular orbit at between ~356,000 km to ~407,000 km (to 3 sig figs).

I don't think anyone disputes that information - after all, it is possible for a normal human to measure the distance to the Moon using some pretty basic 'tools'. So there isn't really any need to 'prove' it.

Type 2 - here's an example of a statement requiring proof...

The regolith of the Moon exhibits 'heiligenschein', in other words it is much more reflective in the direction back towards the light source.

Now, even though it is quite true, this is not a particularly well-known 'fact'. So if I (or Turbonium) was to bring this up (and I will) I should (and will have to if asked) supply compelling proof (and I will). BTW, in that statement I have not elaborated on just how much more reflective it is, so numbers (and ways to verify those numbers) need to be provided. And yes, I will... :P

Such statements WILL require proof if questioned by either side, no matter who brings them up. And finally..

Type 3 - here's an example of handwaving...

Obviously the LM would have blasted a huge crater - everyone knows that so let's just move on..

Bzzzt. Not acceptable. Not only is there no measurable claim, the intention of the poster is to have this meaningless handwave accepted without question.. That's NOT gunna happen in this debate. BTW, statements that start with "Obviously", "Clearly", "Anyone can see", "It's just common sense" and the like are very often handwaves.

Note that handwaves can often be reworded back into Type 2 statements - ie ones that require proof... but then of course that proof must be forthcoming. I'm sure if I get caught handwaving, Turbonium will no doubt be delighted to assist me to reword my handwave into a statement that is then followed up by all the requisite proof. In the same way, if Turbonium handwaves, I shall be delighted to stop him immediately and help him to to do the same. As the debate will only progress one or two statements at a time (and if no proof is supplied the statement will be rejected) there is no way of avoiding the truth. And we will all learn lots of stuff, right?! I'm sure Turbonium will be enlightening me on lots of stuff I don't know...

Anyway, getting to the truth, learning things, and avoiding handwaving is what all of us wants, surely, so let's go.. right, Turbonium?

And are you really, really sure you want to do this on the subject of visibility of Apollo LM exhaust disturbances? I can tell you in advance it will be a quite short debate - forgive me if I don't say why.. :D

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair MID, the day will come when an individual will be able to have a cheap satellite to provide live images as they please. Cubesats are the beginning of this. I can envisage the day when the individual can see whatever lunar images they like, live from an imaging platform that they control.

Not too outlandish a concept...assuredly!

What do you think the odds are of such a capability ending HBs??? :cry:

Me?

I think, no matter what, we'll still have 'em! :yes::td:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a Great YEar Mid I hope all is well with you !

See ya !

Thank you, D!

All is well, as am I! :tsu: :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too outlandish a concept...assuredly!

What do you think the odds are of such a capability ending HBs??? :cry:

Me?

I think, no matter what, we'll still have 'em! :yes::td:

I heard that!! :tu:

If they fly them to the moon right now, they will probably claim the Apollo landing sites were prepared by NASA just before their arrival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that!! :tu:

If they fly them to the moon right now, they will probably claim the Apollo landing sites were prepared by NASA just before their arrival.

I've thought of flying HBs out to the Moon, Sky.

If they made it out there, I think the shock of their experience might well make 'em at least believe that man might have landed on the Moon! You know, seeing those footprints, rovers and tracks, the LMs sitting there...but:

I somehow think a typical HB would either pass out during ascent into LEO, or be so petrified by that, and then attempting to land on the Moon, that they'd be utterly useless upon getting them there.

And even if they managed that part of the trip, they'd also have to slam into the atmosphere at nearly 7 miles per second, and go through the 6 g fireball of re-entry when coming home!

I'm thinking the typical HB isn't coming close to accomplishing any of that!

:td::no::td:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about haloing, turb. Didn't when I first saw it, ecades ago (long before you were even around) You do!

You try and explain why it's so significant...

Why is it so significant?

Because, if the phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo 15 landing site diesn't exist either.

Images from orbit show a genuine disturbance exists in that region. So if the phenomenon doesn't exist, we would see the disturbance much better greater defined, when it's observed/photographed from a ckoser range - as the astronauts would have been.

But it's not seen much better and more defined at close-range. It's not even seen at close-range, period .

And that makes it very significant, indeed.

So once again, I'm asking you to show sources explaining this phenomenon.

Until you do, it's just fictional..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, if the phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo 15 landing site diesn't exist either.

But, the landing site of Apollo 15 does exist. Check it out.

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)

The "halo" area around Apollo 15 landing site observed by Terrain Camera on SELENE(KAGUYA)

May 20, 2008 (JST)

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) reported on the "halo" generated by the Apollo 15* lunar module engine exhaust plume that was detected in the data from Terrain Camera (TC) image.

This was an image processed by the SELENE mission instrument team from the observation data of the Apollo 15 landing site on the moon (the foot of the Apennine Mountains encircling the Mare Imbrium close to Hadley Rille). This is the world's first report on the detection of the "halo" through observations after the end of the Apollo program.

Through the produced three-dimensional image of the same landscape as that of the picture taken by the Apollo 15 crew, the spatial accuracy of the TC observation was verified. The three dimensional view of the TC clearly shows the layers of lava flows that erupted approximately about 3.2 billion years ago in the upper part of the Hadley Rille.

* The Apollo 15 was the ninth manned mission, and fourth lunar landing mission of the Apollo program. The Apollo 15 was launched on July 26, 1971 (JST), landed on the Moon on July 31, 1971, and then landed back on Earth on August 8, 1971. This mission was the first "J mission" and was primarily concerned with scientific research, and stayed longer on the Moon than previous Apollo missions.

20080520_kaguya_01s.jpg

3D view image of the Apollo 15 landing site obtained by TC

The "Falcon" Lunar Module of the Apollo 15 landed on the moon on July 31, 1971 (JST) near the Hadley Rille, at the foot of the Apennine Mountains encircling the Mare Imbrium. The Hadley Rille is a sinuous Rille with a length of 80km and depth of 300m. One of the missions of the Apollo 15 was to study the origin of this Rille. The Rille and the towering mountains near the Rille make this a place of scenic beauty.

20080520_kaguya_08s.jpg

This still image is a cutout from the movie taken by the SELENE (KAGUYA) HDTV (telephoto camera) on January 29, 2008 (JST.). The Apollo 15 landing site, as well as the Montes Apenninus, Hadley Rille (in the left) and Archimedes crater (in the center) are seen in this image.

20080520_kaguya_09s.jpg

3D view image around the Hadley Rille obtained by TC

During the Apollo 15 mission, astronauts also collected samples of mare basalt near the Hadley Rille. They confirmed that the Mare Imbrium was composed of many layers of lava flows, from several to ten meters in depth. The 3D view of the TC looking at the southeast direction from the northwest clearly shows the layers of lava flows on the upper parts of the Rille's wall. These layers were probably formed approximately about 3.2 billion years ago.

Apollo 15 Site

Apollo15_ascentphoto.jpg

SELENE photographs

In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings. On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by Apollo 15 astronauts in July or August 1971.

  • 119px-Apollo_15_with_lunar_rover.jpg
    Apollo 15 rover
  • 119px-Apollo15_Moon_photo.jpg
    Apollo 15 photo

http://www.jaxa.jp/p...0_kaguya_e.html

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for the section of the quoted material that supports your assertions, Turbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it so significant?

REJECTED. This is just arguing from ignorance. Pointless statement.

Because, if the phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo 15 landing site diesn't {sic} exist either.

REJECTED. Handwaving of the worst kind.

Images from orbit show a genuine disturbance exists in that region.

ACCEPTED. This is ... CORRECT!!! No cites required as this is well-known and easily demonstrated.

So if the phenomenon doesn't exist, we would see the disturbance much better greater defined

REJECTED. Even worse handwaving and an ignorant and ridiculous simplification. Visibility depends on many, many factors - I'll be going into them if ever Turbonium agrees to debate properly.

But it's not seen much better and more defined at close-range. It's not even seen at close-range, period.

REJECTED. In fact this is clearly an attempt to mislead the forum, as the effect has been clearly shown numerous times on this thread alone.

So once again, I'm asking you to show sources explaining this phenomenon.

REJECTED. Unbelievable hypocrisy. Turbonium just reeled off a pile of statements without logic, let alone a single source, and he then has the hide to ask others to source their claims when they HAVE been doing so? Disgraceful.

It's time your illogic, hypocrisy and misinformation was torn apart piece by piece, Turbonium, so .. allow me.

I'm still waiting - are you willing to debate this properly? Or shall I just continue tearing down each new falsehood?

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Images from orbit show a genuine disturbance exists in that region. So if the phenomenon doesn't exist, we would see the disturbance much better greater defined, when it's observed/photographed from a ckoser range - as the astronauts would have been.

But it's not seen much better and more defined at close-range. It's not even seen at close-range, period

Is everything easier to see when you get closer to it?

Why exactly do you think archaeologists use aerial photography to locate sites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it so significant?

Because, if the phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo 15 landing site diesn't exist either.

Images from orbit show a genuine disturbance exists in that region. So if the phenomenon doesn't exist, we would see the disturbance much better greater defined, when it's observed/photographed from a ckoser range - as the astronauts would have been.

But it's not seen much better and more defined at close-range. It's not even seen at close-range, period. .

And that makes it very significant, indeed.

So once again, I'm asking you to show sources explaining this phenomenon.

Until you do, it's just fictional..

Makes perfect sense to me!

Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo, and yet, it's often visible given the right lighting in pictures taken from between 60 and 1000 miles,as you've been shown numerous times, then it's just fictional.

And, in your skewed version of thought, since it can't possibly exist, then this:

11602.jpg

AS15-86-11602

or this

11819.jpg...couldn't have been taken 41 years ago in a really great place on the surface of the Moon, strangely enough, by either Dave Scott or Jim Irwin, members of the Apollo 15 lunar surface crew !

AS15-87-11819

And you think (sic) that this didn't exist...or was somehow fake because you can't see micro-fractions of an inch of regolith disturbed by the DPS engine exhaust all around that craft?!

...by the way, neither could Dave, or Jim (rest his soul*) :w00t::clap:

Almost a totally worthless post, turb.

You did answer my question, but I expected (for what reason, I really can't say now...) a little more than more old stuff you should already understand being again re-used to promote your idea.

:no: It just doesn't work.

Your ignornce of things simply can't be covered up.

I'm suggesting, very kindly, mind you, either taking off, and not posting anymore, so as to avoid blantant illustrations of silliness and ignorance.

Perhaps think about a question that you have about Apollo and ask it.

Saying things that have already been explained to you (thouroughly an professionally), as if you don't understand them at all, makes you look, well...even you know!

Perhaps, no one will be annoyed enough at this virtual trolling you do to either break your stones over it, or to have the staff intervene in your redundant tactics.

Take the week to think asbout something, anything...not old already explained stuff you should know. Post an intelligent question about your doubts. You can even apologize for not remembering something you were taught about before ()like this present issue of yours). I'd understand that and be happy to explain it again, as I did before, voluminously.

But something else is definitely required of you here. For the most part, lauging at you isn't really being done with happiness attached to it. It's always a good thing to laugh, certainly, but you hve to realize that alot of this laughter covers pity..perhaps even anger. :tsu:

And don't ever ask me to repeat myself again, and re-do your homework for you. Contact Marshall Spaceflight Center and get their technical report on lunar surface visual characteristics, or , do something previously suggested, but not done because your afraid:

Contact NASA yourself, directly, and ask about what you want.

:w00t::yes::w00t::tsu:

T R Y A G A I N... :yes::w00t::yes:

*

James Irwin, 1930, 8-8-1991...passed on due to a massive heart attack at 61 years of age, 20 years after he walked on the Moon on Apollo 15.

I salute YOU, Jim!

11865.jpg...one of, if not THE greatest manned space flights ever.

Edited by MID
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it so significant?

Because, if the phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo 15 landing site diesn't exist either.

Images from orbit show a genuine disturbance exists in that region. So if the phenomenon doesn't exist, we would see the disturbance much better greater defined, when it's observed/photographed from a ckoser range - as the astronauts would have been.

But it's not seen much better and more defined at close-range. It's not even seen at close-range, period .

And that makes it very significant, indeed.

So once again, I'm asking you to show sources explaining this phenomenon.

Until you do, it's just fictional..

Why is it so significant?

Because, if the phenomenon doesn't exist, it means the Apollo 15 landing site diesn't exist either.

Images from orbit show a genuine disturbance exists in that region. So if the phenomenon doesn't exist, we would see the disturbance much better greater defined, when it's observed/photographed from a ckoser range - as the astronauts would have been.

But it's not seen much better and more defined at close-range. It's not even seen at close-range, period .

And that makes it very significant, indeed.

Significant...to YOU.

That's a very different thing from SIGNIFICANT.

What you don't understand is indeed significant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't sat WHERE in this rather large document you say supports your claim. Could you at least do me the courtesy of naming a page number?

Thank you.

To review what I said...

The reason NASA hires Australians is because the US and Australian governments had an agreement (treaty) to employ Australians as much as possible. This made it look like a joint US-Australian venture, rather than a wholly foreign (US) intrusion. As this document notes...

http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._1975002909.pdf

From pg.24 of the document...

"During the IGY and after, many foreign nationals took the Minitrack course at Blossom Point. In fact, the willingness of NRL and NASA to employ and train foreign nationals at the Minitrack and STADAN stations greatly eased the task of placing U.S. facilities on foreign soil."

On page 258..

The desire to make and keep this country's man-inspace program civilian in character has been instrumental

in helping NASA gain and retain management of the MSFN.

On pg. 84..

...it would be necessary to construct some tracking stations in foreign countries for comprehensive coverage of the flight.

And to some countries, U.S. military installations were out of the question at that time; for these countries suspected

that the proposed tracking radars might also watch missiles and spy satellites. On the other hand, a purely civilian

program with scientific goals that the whole world could embrace would be much more palatable, even desirable. The

fact was that a purely military, worldwide network with frequent astronaut contacts (short deadtime) could not be built.

This consideration was one of many that led Congress to draw up the Space Act specifying a civilian space agency.

So foreign involvement was an important consideration, right from the very inception of NASA itself. NASA was deemed a civilian agency, rather than a military agency, so foreign countries - like Australia - would welcome NASA's presence.

.

They even state how employing and training foreign nationals was used in that way.

So, there's the evidence you requested for my original claim

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is everything easier to see when you get closer to it?

Why exactly do you think archaeologists use aerial photography to locate sites?

You're referring to the ability to see an area in its entirety. In your anaolgy, the archaeolgical site is going to be much better defined when nearer to it, just like the lunar disturbance would be.

And likewise, the entire shape of the lunar disturbance is not seen from very close-up, while it is seen from lunar orbit.

Do you undestand the distinction here?

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting to note how NASA is perceived to be a civilian agency.Doesn't matter nowadays.Ionizing radiation in deep space as well as the insurmountable obstacle of the VA Belts/magnetosphere makes that a moot point.But if it were possible for deep space exploration,we'd have military outposts on the moon by now.

Project Horizon

excerpt:

Reason for Requirement.

  1. The national policy on outer space includes the objective of development and exploiting US outer space capabilities as needed to achieve scientific, military, and potential purposes. The OCB Operations Plan to implement this policy establishes a specific program to obtain scientific data on space environment out to the vicinity of the moon, including the moon's gravitational and magnetic fields and to explore the characteristics of the moon's surface. There are no known technica1 barriers to the establishment of a manned installation on the moon.
  2. The establishment of a manned base of operations on the moon has tremendous military and scientific potential. Because invaluable scientific, military, and political prestige will come to the nation that first establishes a lunar base, it is imperative that the United States be first.
  3. The full extent of the military potential cannot be predicted, but it is probable that observation of the earth and space vehicles from the moon will prove to be highly advantageous. By using a moon-to- earth base line, space surveillance by triangulation promises great range and accuracy. The presently contemplated earth-based tracking., and control network will be inadequate for the deep space operations contemplated. Military communications may be greatly improved by the use of a moon-based relay station. The employment of moon-based weapons systems against earth or space targets may prove to be feasible and desirable. Moon-based military power will be a strong deterrent to war because of the extreme difficulty, from the enemy point of view, of eliminating our ability to retaliate. Any military operations on the moon will be difficult to counter by the enemy because of the difficulty of his reaching the moon, if our forces arc already present and have means of countering a landing or of neutralising any hostile forces that have landed. The situation is reversed if hostile forces are permitted to arrive first. They can militarily counter our landings and attempt to deny us politically the use of their property.
  4. The scientific advantages are equally difficult to predict but are highly promising. Study of the universe, of the moon, and of the space environment will all be aided by scientific effort on the moon. Perhaps the most promising scientific advantage is the usefulness of a moon base for further explorations into space. Materials on the moon itself may prove to be valuable and commercially exploitable.

4. Organisational Concept.

The establishment of the outpost should be a special project having authority and priority similar to the Manhattan Project in World War II. Once established, the lunar base will be operated under the control of a unified space command. Space, or certainly that portion of outer space encompassing the earth and the moon, will be considered a military theatre. The control of all United States military forces by unified commands is already established and military operations in space should be no exception. A unified space command should control and utilise, besides the lunar base, operationa1 military satellites and space vehicles, space surveillance systems, and the logistical support thereof. Other space commands might be organised as our operations extended to translunar space.

5. Degree of Urgency.

To be second to the Soviet Union in establishing an outpost on the moon would be disastrous to our nation's prestige and in turn to our democratic philosophy. Although it is contrary to United States policy, the Soviet Union in establishing the first permanent base, may claim the moon or critical areas thereof for its own. Then a subsequent attempt to establish an outpost by the United States might be considered and propagandised as a hostile act. The Soviet Union in propaganda broadcasts has announced the 50th anniversary of the present government (1967) will be celebrated by Soviet citizens on the moon. The National Space policy intelligence estimate is that the Soviets could land on the moon by 1968.

6. Maintenance and Supply Implications.

The maintenance and supply effort to support a lunar base will be high by present standards. Continued delivery of equipment and means of survival will be required and each delivery will be costly. Every conceivable solution for minimising the logistic effort must be explored. Maximum use of any oxygen or power source on the moon through regenerative or other techniques must be exploited. Means of returning safely to earth must be available to the occupants of the outpost.

7. Training and Personnel Implications.

The number of personnel on the base itself trill be quite small, at least initially, but the total number of personnel supporting the effort may be quite large. Until further study is made a realistic qualitative and quantitative personnel estimate cannot be provided. The training requirements of earth-based support personnel would resemble those of personnel in long range ballistic missile units and radar tracking systems. For the relatively small number of personnel actually transported to the moon base training requirements would be exacting in many fields.

8. Additional Items and Requirements.

A complete family of requirements and supporting research and development projects will be necessary to develop all of the supporting equipment to establish a lunar base. Very high thrust boosters, space vehicles, intermediate space stations, space dwellings, clothing and consumable supplies will have to be developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes perfect sense to me!

Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo, and yet, it's often visible given the right lighting in pictures taken from between 60 and 1000 miles,as you've been shown numerous times, then it's just fictional.

No. You just keep making the same unsubstantiated claims. iver and over again.

We already know you can't see the disturbance in close-range photos, and that is's visible in photos from orbit.

It's the reasons you claim for this that needs to be proven. You claim it's due to lighting angle, etc. - but you have never shown evidence, or sources, to back it uo.

All you do is say how it's been explained to me, and that I should call NASA about it.

This is utterly ridiculous.

Why can't you show me even one single source explaining this 'phenomenon'?

Because it doesn't exist, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REJECTED. Unbelievable hypocrisy. Turbonium just reeled off a pile of statements without logic, let alone a single source, and he then has the hide to ask others to source their claims when they HAVE been doing so? Disgraceful.

They HAVE been sourcing their claims? Good to hear that. So now, please tell me exactly where they showed sources for their claim of this 'phenomenon'. I can't wait to see it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're referring to the ability to see an area in its entirety.

REJECTED. In what way is this relevant? This is simplistic handwaving and has not addressed the issues in any meaningful way.

Given that ANY feature's visibility is dependent on:

- the extent of the image in the field of view

- the nature of illumination (intensity, colour, angle)

- the nature of the feature (reflectivity/texture/etc)

ALL of those aspects must be considered.

In your anaolgy{sic}, the archaeolgical{sic} site is going to be much better defined when nearer to it

REJECTED. This is a silly and unjustified extension of the analogy as again it depends on the nature and size of the feature. Handwaving and wasting time.

just like the lunar disturbance would be.

REJECTED. Without defining ALL the characteristics of the features it is NOT "just like" anything.

And likewise, the entire shape of the lunar disturbance is not seen from very close-up, while it is seen from lunar orbit.

ACCEPTED. If this is obvious to you, why aren't all the other characteristics that define visibility?

UNTIL you are willing to discuss them properly, your position is irrelevant and ignorant.

Do you undestand{sic} the distinction here?

Everyone else here seems to get this and you are refusing to debate properly, so it is very obviously YOU who (deliberately, it seems) 'doesn't understand'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We already know you can't see the disturbance in close-range photos

Before we show you AGAIN the images that prove that is a bald-faced lie, will you explain why you keep lying and ignoring evidence placed in front of you?

If you refuse then I think there needs to be some moderator reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another item from the document I cited earlier..

The most vivid way to describe the

African situation is to quote sections from a trip report

made by Langley's Ray W. Hooker, who was largely

responsible for the preparation of the Mercury Network sites

"In the case of the Kano and Zanzibar sites, the

British have sold the local government on the

fact that this is an American experiment, harmless

in nature and would contribute to the scientific

knowledge of the world. In both the Nigerian

and Zanzibar governments there is the

general native population which is capable of

believing almost anything, and getting quite

excited about it".

Het! Let's tell the Africans it's a great idea, and entirely harmless. They're so gullible, they'll believe almost anything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we show you AGAIN the images that prove that is a bald-faced lie, will you explain why you keep lying and ignoring evidence placed in front of you?

If you refuse then I think there needs to be some moderator reports.

MID said..

"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo"

So MID is lying, too?

And I asked you to show where they sourced the 'phenomenon'. How about it?

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gort, TL;DR. Why post such a ridiculous wall of text?

It is interesting to note how NASA is perceived to be a civilian agency.

WHY exactly is it interesting?

Doesn't matter nowadays.Ionizing radiation in deep space

1. How much?

2. What type?

3. What type of shielding is effective?

In other words, I am calling you out - do you have the knowledge of that which you speak? If so, answer those questions and we'll discuss this fully. If yiou can't, or get them wrong, then your opinion is irrelevant.

as well as the insurmountable obstacle of the VA Belts/magnetosphere makes that a moot point.

As above, please don't handwave. Put some numbers to that alleged 'insurmountability'. After all, the amount and type of radiation was quite well understood at the time of Apollo and is even better understood nowadays. The ISS and many satellites pass through some of the high energy parts of the VA Belts quite regularly. Do you believe the ISS is a hoax too?

But if it were possible for deep space exploration,we'd have military outposts on the moon by now.

Why? How much do you think they would cost, and who would pay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.