At last my ability to use both the ctrl, C and V keys comes in handy!Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
Printable View
At last my ability to use both the ctrl, C and V keys comes in handy!Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
how ridiculous is this. No it wasn't fake!
Why do you even bother citing a site like Wikipedia anyway? Not all of wikipedia is fact and not all of it is reliable information. What you posted doesn't even have any info to back it up either. They've been to the moon plenty of times and not just Apollo 11. People have smacked golf balls up in it and now theres so much junk in space they're crashing into our satellites and spacecraft making it more difficult for space travel.
The people who think that the moon landing is a conspiracy, are the same people who think that the Holocaust wasn't real, and that white people hold down all other races...in other words IGNORANT PEOPLE. Oh well think what you want.
Good job, alpha2117.
BTW, Sucksalot, escape velocity from the lunar surface is approximately 5300 miles per hour. Tiger Woods couldn't even put a golf ball into orbit from the Moon. Still, I agree, there's a lot of debris up there in space, and apparently a bit in the spaces between your ears as well :)
Did I say it was?Quote:
Originally Posted by 2009AD
No shit the video exist. It could be a fake, it could be authentic. I was also was wondering was it's authenticity was already debunked.Quote:
Prove to you what's fake? The video? No the video exists. I can see it. Spongebob Squarepants videos also exist. I have no idea what I'm looking at or what your point is in posting it.
Did I implied that it was authentic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oli
All I said was to explain it. That's it.
pls. note
pls. note
Total fucking bullshit, as any photographer will tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by thx1138
Face shield is simply showing slight difference in local reflectivity-- no spotlight, bub.
There is no "ground hotspot" round the astronaut. This was taken with a wideangle lens on a modified Hasselblad SWC and these lenses show some light fall-off away from the central axis. It's not a hot-spot, it's a perfectly well understood optical effect.
There is no dark horizon. The tonal value of the ground 10 feet or so behinf the astronaut is the same as that at infinity. Your man has an eye problem--he's seeing things he wants to see.
Rock shadow IS parallel to astronaut's.
"Dark" side of astronaut is filled with reflected light from the ground, just as I would expect it to be.
Is it possible that you are a moron? Because if this BS is what you base your ideas on, I think you have a case to answer.
Now PLEASE
Trish, just to prove I'm fair, I have to say that while your overall conclusion is bang on the money, the second part of rebuttal point 2 is a tad flawed. I can explain that if you like. But not till tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
M
Quote:
Trish, just to prove I'm fair, I have to say that while your overall conclusion is bang on the money, the second part of rebuttal point 2 is a tad flawed. I can explain that if you like. But not till tomorrow.
Please do. I知 always happy to learn from someone who knows what they池e talking about.
I also love trying to figure things out on my own. So let me make a quick guess at what you値l say. That way, if I知 wrong I値l be doubly embarrassed and I値l remember the lesson twice as well:
The intensity of light the eye receives from one reflecting surface diminishes with the square of the distance of the surface from the point of observation. However the number of such surfaces that fit into a given solid angle of observation increases with the square of that same distance. So the net luminosity remains fixed with distance.
In the photograph there is an illusion that this net luminosity my be diminishing with distance. But if you hold your hand over the bottom of the photo so that (as you say) only the ground ten feet behind the astronaut to the horizon is visible, it all appears to be evenly lit.
No embarrassment because I think you have it, but you're expressing it in an unconventional way. Actually this is a lot easier to explain with a pencil and paper, but the rule is normally expressed by saying that the total amount of light that a given surface of constant area will receive from a point source of light will diminish with the inverse square of distance, because light radiates out from a point source at a constant angle. The further the surface from the source, the less actual light energy falls on the surface, either to be reflected or absorbed.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
(If the surface maintained its angular relation to the light rays, ie expanded proportionally to distance, then the total amount of light falling on it would remain the same. This does not mean that the surface will necessarily be evenly illuminated, however, and it won't be if it is flat, but if the surface is part of a sphere it will, which BTW is why the images from Hasselblad SWC lenses show some light fall-off in the corners. The same effect is seen looking at the inside of a cylindrical lamp-shade, which will appear evenly lit, but if we take off the shade and put the lamp at the same distance from a white wall, we see a hot-spot. But I digress.)
However the apparent brightness of a source of light or a light-reflecting surface remains the same, irrespective of distance, as long as we maintain the angle of view. (Assuming ideal conditions; over very long distances light is absorbed and reflected by intervening matter, such as dust or vapour.) You can test this if you have access to a spot light-meter, by reading from an object 1 metre away and then again much further away; the reading will not change.
What this means is that how bright an object reflecting light appears is related to the distance from the light source to the object, not the object to the viewer. This is why distant objects, mountains etc, appear as brightly lit as near objects. The sun is so far away it can be considered as at infinity, which is why the tops of mountains do not appear brighter than the valleys below them.
Since a diminution by the inverse square of distance is actually quite a lot, then if the way you put it initially were true we would all be walking around at the centre of brightly-illuminated pools of light, surrounded by total darkness.
(Yes I know some people here ARE surrounded by total darkness, but Trish, you are definitely not one of them.)
Nice to talk to you, as always.
May I have some cheese with that whine?
Has anyone read the full Discworld series? i think it has almost 40 books and 25 other texts(maps,picture books,science books,cookbooks,etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
Fuck off back to your room while the grown-ups are having an intelligent discussion.....Quote:
Originally Posted by thx1138
Thank you MacShreach, for clearing up point (2). Maybe a picture will help thx visualize the geometry. (It is assumed the aperture is sufficiently small for the approximations to apply).
Mac expounds on the benefits and pitfalls of "tea bagging" to his American fans. Chef Mike to his right and slightly behind looks on in rapt awe.
Actually, no, my skin is green...Quote:
Originally Posted by thx1138
......but on the other hand
Yes, you could very well be a cartoon character.
Laddie, I am a cartoon character-- and that makes me a sight more real than your deluded fantasies!Quote:
Originally Posted by thx1138
And now for something completely different...
Did you draw those yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The fact of the matter is, no one who claims the moon landing was fake can bring up a point that hasn't already been refuted. That combined with the fact that to fake such a thing would require the cooperation of thousands of people and you have an opinion with no basis in reality and only a basis in ignorance.
Exactly!!! I mean all these people do is show some photo and try to make sort of some sense to it why it appears false and try to put some logic into to make it believableQuote:
Originally Posted by Instrumental
Truth is I am not an expert in shadows and that crap, I no idea how a shadow is suppose to look on the photo...thanks to Trish she helped us understand a little more and he explanation made 1000x more sense than the photos...but still despite all the science, somehow people still believe in the nonsense
I confress, lahabra, to the deed; the drawing is mine. But thanks should go to MacShreach for his debunking of the four point critique posted by thx, and for giving a correct analysis of point (2) first try.
Hey, MacShreach, are you by any chance a photographer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
He might be. But what he is, is a MacShreach.
You're very kind, and guilty as charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
How about this to detect the lunar lander? Since it landed in a flat plain it's shadow should be detectable by HST when the sun hangs low on the horizon. (twice a month) The shadow should be long enough to be visible.
Jeez, are you still on this?Quote:
Originally Posted by thx1138
Whatever. Ask an astronomer. It won't make any difference-- that lander is there (unless some of your wee green chums came and pinched it.)
You know what really gets me about you conspiracy theorists is that you are so busy believing all the complete bunkum you do that you actually miss it totally when Govts DO pull the wool.
A great example would be the whole Roswell/Area 51 hoax, which was deliberately fostered by US military PR spin-doctors to divert attention from the fact that they were developing and testing Stealth Technology aircraft, and lord knows what else, there.
I mean talk about setting yourselves up for the sucker-punch!
And it just goes on and on-- remember crop circles? That first started in England and the hoax got so absurd that eventually the two chaps who started it came out and confessed. (And they knew things no-one else did, and even exactly replicated the effects, which confirmed that they were indeed, the very lads) but still, thirty years later, there are lunatics who actually believe the work of a couple of practical jokers with a lawnmower was evidence of .....Woooo..........ALIENS......and the Gummint is hiding this......
You know there are nutters out every night in fields all over the west of England actually watching for the flying saucers--or whatever the fashionable term is these days. You couldn't make it up, you really couldn't.
Next thing you'll be telling me Erich von Danichen was right after all! Or that there is, actually, a Bermuda Triangle!
This conspiracy theory crap is a whole disinformation industry, and if the US Govt ever DOES get round to doing something on the moon, you can bet they'll be anonymously feeding lines to the gullible and those who make their livings gulling them, to do the exact same thing--muddy the water and prevent anyone finding out what is really going on, because a bunch of crazy, staring-eyed conspiracy theorists are already yelling "Hey, look! Wee green men!"
I ask you.
As I said earlier I didn't post the original article. I don't really give a shit one way or another over an event that may or may not have happened 40 years ago. No money in my pocket. There's too much going on right now. As for crop circles I knew most of them were pranks by college students. Area 51 is well documented. The Russians had plenty of photos despite all the US denials. Got any more?
To be honest with you I think we will just stop there. Any case, very nice drawing Trish.Quote:
Originally Posted by thx1138
Next topic: truth FINALLY revealed, the earth is flat. :lol:
Is this you?
Say cheese.
I am sorry to tell you that I am much better looking than that ;) . As for you, on the other hand...
http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/tinfoil-hat.jpg
Whilst I felt it was appropriate to smile at the progressive deterioration of your psyche throughout this thread, it must be pointed out that you stand as living proof that conspiracy theories are indeed linked to paranoia bursts and mental illness. :lol:
THIS HAS BEEN A QUESTION ASKED FOR A LONG TIME EVERYWHERE I GO. I ASKED MY MOM WHO BY THE WAY IS OLDER THAN MAYBE MOST OF US HERE ABOUT THIS AND SHE TOLD ME FOR SURE IT WAS REAL. AND SHE SAID HOW PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS FAKE . BUT I HAVE SOME FAMILY WHO SAW THE LAUNCH SO IF THAT ROCKET WAS FAKE LAUNCHING THEN THATS A BIG HOAX NASA PULLED!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Distance
You may be right about the person this comment is directed, but please, the whole term, "conspiracy theory" was created by the very liars and thieves to help cover crimes. When was Watergate no longer a conspiracy theory but true? Or Iran/Contra?
Do you really buy Bush Co's official story concerning 911? And if you say you do, you're even crazier than the guy you deride, since almost the whole report has been redacted.....that means blacked out so people like you and me can't read the truth. Firemen on the scene all say they heard incremental explosions as the Towers fell and despite the false claim fires melted the steel frame, in the real world of science, steel doesn't melt in an open fire at 600 degrees...which is hottest the fires could have been. Steel melts at nearly 2000 degrees. Bush defies science once again!
And what about domestic spying or torture issues that come into focus of late? Do you remember what these early reports were being called at first, when these programs' very existence was being denied? Yes,I'm sure we went to the moon in 1969 because there is proof it happened. From Nixon onward the public has been regularly lied to with little or no consequence. It's a fool's paradise. Enjoy the scenery. :soapboxQuote:
"baseless conspiracy theories."
This thread is like the Duracell Bunny....
Say only a time... I'm working in a private space agency from a lot. Moonlanding is true, all the rest are bullshit.
Use your brain.
I can talk about for days... but true is true, I haven't to prove sun shining.
Sorry my english, i'm italian.
Bye
THAT IS GREAT DURACELL BUNNY,LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
It's a characteristic of committed (and committable) conspiracy theorists that they begin on safe ground where yes, we do know a conspiracy happened, before taking a walk in the loony farm. The technique is designed to give the preposterous baloney they are trying to sell credibility by associating it with known truths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helvis2012
Now, for your benefit, mild steel melts at 1600 deg F, not 2000, and you are not talking about an "open fire", the temperature of which would in any case be determined by the fuel, but an artificially fuelled fire in an enclosed chimney, which created a powerful updraught resulting in a firestorm. Firestorms can easily reach 1600 deg F, as here in a firestorm in a bush fire in Australia in February this year:
"a furious fire storm that was so intense that it melted steel sheds and even motor vehicles. One person described how they fire proofed their home only to see a gigantic fireball destroy it in seconds."
Full Story: http://www.myapologetics.com/firesto...ve-killed-200/
This phenomenon is very well documented and understood and there are many well-researched examples of firestorms where the temperature became high enough to melt steel; the most famous, probably, being in Dresden after a British bombing raid in WW2, which was the subject of Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse 5. This phenomenon is not at all rare; I have seen the effect personally on several occasions, after the fire was out.
Furthermore, it is completely normal for firemen to report hearing multiple explosions in situations like this, because these explosions are actually happening as a consequence of the intense heat.
Yet again, a conspiracy theory based on wilful and deliberate disinformation using statements that are actually false, not applicable in the circumstances, or misinterpretations of the facts.
Incredible.