|
| 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. |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#2
November 14th 03, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message . com...
(John Beadles) wrote in message om... (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message Thanks, although I think I have seen this image before. It is not detailed enough for any pro or contra judgement. Additionaly this data does not contradict to my theory that US did send and soft landed a sort of automatic probe equipped with TV rebroadcaster to show overexcited US public the "moon" pictures from an earth studio. Although clearly given level of that time technology this achiement by itself was, no doubts, a huge success. Michael I'm curious about this mythical automated probe that could have taken the place of the Apollo LEMs. Since *EVERY* launch in that time period has been publically identified (the US having no capability to launch heavy boosters in any form of secret fashion), And why is that? You have little respect to USA. To the contrary, I simply have sufficient knowledge of the american countryside and space program to know that there was no way to perform space launches that big such no hint of them has leaked out in 40 years. Even the Soviets couldn't pull that off from Pletsetsk. In the US there were and still are) only a limited number of launch facilities that can process launch vehicles of that size, all surrounded by populated areas. The US was and is sufficiently populated that any launch from a remote area could not be hidden. It might be conceivably possible to build a remote launch pad outside the country (not for a Saturn V), but then you still have to get the launch vehicle in the country, and those aren't available on every street corner. where could such an automated probe have come from? No idea. What was it launched on? Obviousely on Saturn V How could this be even conceivably possible? The launch vehicle stacking and checkout procedures were not military secrets. There were innumerable technicians involved, and yet no hint of the security measures that would be necessary to install, test and fly the mythical lander without the secret leaking out immediately. Also there is no hint of the hardware adaptations that would be necessary to fit such a lander to the spacecraft. When was it launched? A good question. I do not know. There were several official NASA automatic and "manned" Moon missions. In fact one successful landing of automatic probe with rebroadcaster was enough to for the Appolo program. BTW this explains rate of success for Appolo missions. Given Appolo 13 was a sort intertaining TV program the rate of success was 100%. If they had to land rebroadcaster every time there would be much less than that. Yes, there were several such missions, but I fail to see how one such successful one would have sufficed to fake the rest. How could this be done? Please give me some detail so we can look for fingerprints of it actually happening. What was it? Personally I think it was something based on Surveyor design. No doubt. 
|
|
#3
November 14th 03, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
November 14th 03, 11:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Petukhov wrote:
I would send Radio/TV signal in the way: Huston - Studio in Nevada - Moon rebroadcaster - Huston would that be John or Angelica? redc1c4, and how would the signal get through your tin foil hat? %-) -- "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide
|
|
#5
November 15th 03, 02:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Petukhov wrote:
[...] The funny side that even time delays would be just fine not to speak that the signal does come from the moon. The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world. Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush me on? Right? Little naive boy... So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think that this was faked at all? -george william herbert
|
|
#6
November 15th 03, 09:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(George William Herbert) wrote in message ...
Michael Petukhov wrote: [...] The funny side that even time delays would be just fine not to speak that the signal does come from the moon. The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world. Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush me on? Right? Little naive boy... So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think that this was faked at all? This is very big field full of false claims and contra claims. I cannot give you a complete list but in my view there are lots of very strange things in NASA official pictures and particualrly in movies (wrong shadows, untouched dust directly under LM engine, clouds of dust from under rover wheels etc.), strange elements of LM design like inward opening hatch, space and van-allen belts radiation which was largerly ignored etc. On radiation you can start with: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm it has references on valid nasa documents and measuremrnts. As for the pictures there are many sites on internet. Try "moon hoax" you would have tons of that with pictures refernces etc. Both pro and contra, false and true. So be careful you can be mislead. Michael -george william herbert
|
|
#7
November 16th 03, 09:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Petukhov wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote in message ... Michael Petukhov wrote: [...] The funny side that even time delays would be just fine not to speak that the signal does come from the moon. The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world. Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush me on? Right? Little naive boy... So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think that this was faked at all? This is very big field full of false claims and contra claims. I cannot give you a complete list but in my view there are lots of very strange things in NASA official pictures and particualrly in movies (wrong shadows, untouched dust directly under LM engine, clouds of dust from under rover wheels etc.), strange elements of LM design like inward opening hatch, space and van-allen belts radiation which was largerly ignored etc. On radiation you can start with: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm it has references on valid nasa documents and measuremrnts. As for the pictures there are many sites on internet. Try "moon hoax" you would have tons of that with pictures refernces etc. Both pro and contra, false and true. So be careful you can be mislead. As IMO you have been! http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html gives a useful summary of the true explanations of the fallacies mentioned by you above. Of course, as with holocaust deniers and UFO believers, psychological factors are more important than historical or scientific ones in understanding why people hold these beliefs. John
|
|
#8
November 16th 03, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Mullen wrote in message ...
Michael Petukhov wrote: (George William Herbert) wrote in message ... Michael Petukhov wrote: [...] The funny side that even time delays would be just fine not to speak that the signal does come from the moon. The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world. Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush me on? Right? Little naive boy... So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think that this was faked at all? This is very big field full of false claims and contra claims. I cannot give you a complete list but in my view there are lots of very strange things in NASA official pictures and particualrly in movies (wrong shadows, untouched dust directly under LM engine, clouds of dust from under rover wheels etc.), strange elements of LM design like inward opening hatch, space and van-allen belts radiation which was largerly ignored etc. On radiation you can start with: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm it has references on valid nasa documents and measuremrnts. As for the pictures there are many sites on internet. Try "moon hoax" you would have tons of that with pictures refernces etc. Both pro and contra, false and true. So be careful you can be mislead. As IMO you have been! http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html gives a useful summary of the true explanations of the fallacies mentioned by you above. Of course, as with holocaust deniers and UFO believers, psychological factors are more important than historical or scientific ones in understanding why people hold these beliefs. Sometimes yes sometimes no. as for "true explanations" well as usual, John anyone have to decide what is more credible the facts or its "true explanations". Michael John
|
|
#9
November 16th 03, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Mullen wrote in message ...
Michael Petukhov wrote: (George William Herbert) wrote in message ... Michael Petukhov wrote: [...] The funny side that even time delays would be just fine not to speak that the signal does come from the moon. The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world. Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush me on? Right? Little naive boy... So, would you mind explaining from the start for those of us who missed your earlier postings, what makes you think that this was faked at all? This is very big field full of false claims and contra claims. I cannot give you a complete list but in my view there are lots of very strange things in NASA official pictures and particualrly in movies (wrong shadows, untouched dust directly under LM engine, clouds of dust from under rover wheels etc.), strange elements of LM design like inward opening hatch, space and van-allen belts radiation which was largerly ignored etc. On radiation you can start with: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm it has references on valid nasa documents and measuremrnts. As for the pictures there are many sites on internet. Try "moon hoax" you would have tons of that with pictures refernces etc. Both pro and contra, false and true. So be careful you can be mislead. As IMO you have been! http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html John, just a few comments on that site. It is nicely organized. It does include refernces to original materials and it discusses most (not all tought) important NASA problems with that Moon landings. Moreover tt seems author prepared a book to disprove NASA hoax theory, which is on sale. But there is one important problem. He lies, directly and openly. He says: "... However, not the rover! If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. ..." It is the lie. I am sure you have seen this video. If not take it and look very closely. It is exactly opposite to what was actually shown in NASA official videos. Namely clouds of dust from rover wheels stopped by the air exactly like on the earth were shown. Very visible, very clear. BTW the same effects for dust from astranouts foots is also sometimes very clearly visible. Why he lies, John? If so, after that, how we can trust a word from this guy about his on other topics, easily received discussions with NASA experts etc.? No way. "... Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today! ..." Exactly. This is the Earth? Michael This is another case of selective vision on the part of the HBs. gives a useful summary of the true explanations of the fallacies mentioned by you above. Of course, as with holocaust deniers and UFO believers, psychological factors are more important than historical or scientific ones in understanding why people hold these beliefs. John
|
|
#10
November 15th 03, 03:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message . com...
(John Beadles) wrote in message . com... ...skipped I hope you can forgive me for skipping lots of nonrelated crap above When was it launched? A good question. I do not know. There were several official NASA automatic and "manned" Moon missions. In fact one successful landing of automatic probe with rebroadcaster was enough to for the Appolo program. BTW this explains rate of success for Appolo missions. Given Appolo 13 was a sort intertaining TV program the rate of success was 100%. If they had to land rebroadcaster every time there would be much less than that. Yes, there were several such missions, but I fail to see how one such successful one would have sufficed to fake the rest. How could this be done? Please give me some detail so we can look for fingerprints of it actually happening. Kidding? How I can give you details? I can give you a prompt only. I would send Radio/TV signal in the way: Huston - Studio in Nevada - Moon rebroadcaster - Huston The funny side that even time delays would be just fine not to speak that the signal does come from the moon. The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world. Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush me on? Right? Little naive boy... Ambush you? Not at all. Rather, it's part of a pet project of mine. I've been reviewing the arguments of the "Moon landings were a hoax" proponents and have identified a general trend. The trend is that they are willing to disregard or misrepresent the available evidence in favor of the landings, but are totally unable to present ANY evidence supporting their own theories. A moon hoax proponent with a valid argument should be able to show positive proof showing how the hoax was executed. I was curious to see if you were going to have anything original, but no, no luck. In any case, this particular example is directly falsifiable in that forign nationals were able to track the spacecraft in flight, and signals heard from the vicinity of the moon were doppler shifted, not possible with a stationary transmitter. A previously landed moon probe would not have been sufficient. See http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/...7/APOLLO17.htm for an example. It is also easy to show that the responses between the flight crew and ground control did not show the time delay that would be present if there was a voice relay from the ground to the moon and back. If the signal were the result of a recording from a lunar bound lander, the ground controllers would have had to have previously prepared scripts, therefor all the ground controllers would have had to be in on it.
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
