PDA

View Full Version : Moon ?'s



2002-Mar-11, 11:33 AM
LIE`ing about "on the moon"
Full moon JD2440431.61500 = UTC 29July`69 2:45
New MOON JD2440417.10200 = UTC 14July`69 14:12
-----------------------------------------------
J days = 14.513 = 15days less 11:27hrs
================================================== ==
15*24=360*60=21600min-11*60+27=687min total 20913min
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::
if 180 deg = 20913 min then 1deg = 116.183&1/3 min

2002-Mar-11, 11:36 AM
1/4 Moon July22 12:10UTC JD2440425.007 = 7.905JD's
new moon july14 14:12UCT Jd2440417.102/ 126.5 min/deg
"On The Moon" July 20 1969 4:17pmEDT & 10:56pmEDT
2days 8hr prior to first Quarter ?= 56hr=3360-7=3353min
d=3353/126.48 = 26.5degrees; = Terminator4 =t
My Moon Map shows Mt. Bradley 14400 near CONON ?20N at0
20E| Sabine & Manners :30E Maskeylne 8200
20E|....|....|..t.|....:....|....|....|....|40E
<--about-- MARE TRANQUILLITATIS -300m->

2002-Mar-11, 11:40 AM
20E| Sabine & Manners :30E Maskeylne 8200
20E|....|....|..t.|....:....|....|....|....|40E
<---?about 150miles-> 8200/5280= 1.55
tan =| / ___. <3.5de> 35 miles? .___| 1.55/35 =.044
THATa = about 2.5 deg whilst t to 0 = 3.5 deg
THEIR4 1.55 Maskeylne shadow#.06 = about 25 miles long
and My# for 11shadows will be 4now 25 times current.pic
------------------------------
sO? Yeah with shadows that long
my `pois`N will be a long -

2002-Mar-12, 11:06 AM
<a name="6 AKBAL 1 CUMKU"> page 6 AKBAL 1 CUMKU
20E| Sabine & Manners :30E Maskeylne 8200 i `poise 4this
20E|....|S...|..t.|.../:....|....?....|....|40E tWas 4primeT
landing ^site was 0.67 North Latitude by 23:23 East Longitude.
sunlight at the time of landing? ^ 35 degrees East. {vs 26.5}
<---?about 150miles-> ?/? terminator Moving west ?=.5deg/hr
derived from 180 deg = 20913 min then 1deg = 116.183&1/3 min
dark at 4:17 PM EDT July 20th 1969 : on moon at 10:56 PM EDT
6.5 hr later = 3.3 deg or 23.2 [ in other words at SunUP . ]
on Moon 2hr 21min = Sun 1.3 deg= shadow lengths>40:1=verylong
4:58 A.M.

2002-Mar-12, 11:09 AM
<a name="JD2452346.a"> page JD2452346.a aka ?
its fairly clear to me, that i've been easiy duped! My
reconstruction of the events based on first 1/4 & NEW
indicates .. {from the DATA i've available}[on the net]
that the landing took place in Earthshine Not Sunshine.
And there was a HUGE mistake somewhere by someone ... &
this was covered over. to make it appear `69 was TRUE..
I do `poise the landing took place, and Armstrong1 did
Emerge onto the moon :"AT FIRST SUNUP":. wHAT really
happend after that [first sun]`s anybody$' Guess?/?

Ian R
2002-Mar-12, 03:32 PM
Here's what David Harland had to say about this in his review of Dark Moon (by David Percy) at Amazon.co.uk:



"The book's cover shows the Apollo 13 landing site in darkness, and the authors assert that this illustrates that no landing could have been made... and they're half right - as they often are - the site is in darkness, but the 'time' of the terminator was the time that the s/c was disabled by the explosion - the fabled 13th April. If all had gone well, they would have entered lunar orbit on the 14th and landed on the 15th. As usual, they wanted to land just after local dawn, with the Sun about 8 degrees up. Now, the terminator on the 13th is shown on the meridian, it moves about 12 degrees per day, and the landing site is 18 degrees west, so you want to land late on the 15th don't you... which means that while you're travelling to the moon, the site is in predawn darkness... "


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-03-12 10:33 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Mar-12, 03:53 PM
I've always found this to be the most ludicrous argument. I wonder of these authors have ever tried to precisely time an arrival anywhere. It's just like say, "Let's see, the concert starts at 7:00 p.m. and it takes half an hour to get there and park the car, so we'll leave at 6:30 p.m." And then along comes a hopeless skeptic who points out that the concert must be bogus because when they left their house there was no concert playing!

Twelve degrees per day. It's really not a hard concept to deal with. If the moon's phase angle shifts by twelve degrees per day, and therefore the terminator marches across the surface at twelve degrees per day, and you want to land on the terminator, and it takes three days to get there, you had better aim for where the terminator is going to be in three days, or about 36 degrees from where it is when you launch.

But it gets better. It would be so easy to say that Percy's more complicated arguments are probably false too because he got the simple ones absolutely wrong. But a charitable approach would allow Percy and Bennet to have made an honest mistake. Everyone makes them. The problem is that this mistake has been brought to Percy's attention repeatedly over at least the past year or so. And how does he answer? He doesn't attempt to salvage the remainder of his theory by chopping off the necrotic argument. He maintains he's correct! This boggles the mind.

Clearly Percy's intended audience are the people who lack the skill or foresight to divide 360 degrees by 29 days. That's fine if the blind want to lead the blind and exchange money between them. But the Percy book and video are billed as "incontrovertible" evidence that the Apollo record was falsified. And of course the real problem is that a generation of impressionable kids are growing up with this tripe being paraded around as a viable theory. What kind of scientists is the world going to produce in the future if this sort of nonsense is not revealed for what it is?

And we certainly feel less charitable toward the remainder of Percy's arguments now that we've seen how he handles (or rather, neglects to handle) errors in his supporting arguments. In those situations where the evidence is not quite so straightforward, we're now less likely to give Percy the benefit of the doubt because his motive is a little less noble.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-12, 05:24 PM
On 2002-03-12 06:09, HUb' wrote:
its fairly clear to me, that i've been easiy duped!
It pains me to say this, but I'm going to have to agree. I don't see any evidence that any of the landings took place on the night side of the terminator.

AstroMike
2002-Mar-12, 05:32 PM
On 2002-03-12 12:24, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
It pains me to say this, but I'm going to have to agree. I don't see any evidence that any of the landings took place on the night side of the terminator.


I think this goes back to my "Someone who thinks Moon hoax is proved" thread. It probably never occurred to that person of the E-mail I posted about the effects of lunar libration.

Wiley
2002-Mar-12, 05:37 PM
On 2002-03-12 12:24, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
It pains me to say this, but I'm going to have to agree. I don't see any evidence that any of the landings took place on the night side of the terminator.


Careful, GoW. Some HB'er will quote you but leave off the "on the night side of the terminator."
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

David Hall
2002-Mar-13, 02:13 AM
Say, JayUtah or some other knowledgeable person. In another thread I ran the Apollo 11 landing site/time through my Starry Night simulator and I got a landing almost exactly 24 hours after local sunrise. I realize it's just simple simulation software, so I'd like to hear what the experts say about just how much after sunrise it actually was.

Hadn't thought of the lunar libration before. That could change things. I wonder if it's calculated into the simulators.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-13, 02:42 AM
I got a landing almost exactly 24 hours after local sunrise.

Well, the flight plan calls for a sun elevation angle of 10.8&deg; and that would correspond to about 21 hours after local sunrise. How accurate do you need this? The moon rotates at an average of 0.516 degrees per hour.

I wonder if it's calculated into the simulators.

I'm not familiar with Starry Night (well, other than van Gogh's) and its capability. But most of those guys pride themselves on the weird, obscure stuff they accommodate. The software I used a while back was written by some guys who thought no computable factor was too insignificant.

David Hall
2002-Mar-13, 03:11 AM
Well, all I really wanted was some actual documented numbers. That way, when someone comes along saying it was nighttime when the landing was supposed to occur, we can say with confidence that "No, it was approximately 21 hours after sunrise and the sun was 10.8&deg; high in the sky."

It'd also be nice to have the same info for the other 5 landings too.

2002-Mar-15, 04:04 AM
<a name="20020314.9:52P"> page 20020314.9:52P aka Red Shift
On 2002-03-12 22:11, David Hall wrote: To: 8 CHICCHAN 3 CUMKU
Well, all I really wanted was some actual documented numbers. That way, when someone comes along saying it was nighttime when the landing was supposed to occur, we can say with confidence that "No, it was approximately 21 hours after sunrise and the sun was 10.8 high in the sky."

Red shift also makes it appear as though
it was daylight at 23.23 around the 20th
HOWEVER! it also made it look to me like
the 1/4 moon had already past by
1/4 Moon July22 12:10UTC JD2440425.007
further reaserch due 2morrow. { the red shift terminator lines very broad maybe 300 miles wide?

2002-Mar-16, 10:07 AM
ANYWAY? using "RED SHIFT" i went over and over
the date & time mentioned eariler.. and its
pretty much a given that it indicates also
that for 4:17 EDT July 20th that 23E was shown
to be in the sunlight portion of the spectrum
and i'll probably agree that the angle_RYTHYM
used give an "ANGEL" of around 10 degress
=/- one or 2 pus or minus another 10 degress
Must be the same math program being used
would be my guess..anyway2 using 10 i convert
to shadow angles of around 6:1 no where even
near to the far less than 3:1 I see in the
photos I see. also one of the movies show a beyound the terminator touchdown? any comment from astronomers on that angle?

2002-Mar-19, 04:07 PM
On 2002-03-12 10:32, Ian R wrote:
Here's what David Harland had to say about this in his review of Dark Moon (by David Percy) at Amazon.co.uk:



"The book's cover shows the Apollo 13 landing site in darkness, and the authors assert that this illustrates that no landing could have been made... and they're half right - as they often are - the site is in darkness, but the 'time' of the terminator was the time that the s/c was disabled by the explosion - the fabled 13th April. If all had gone well, they would have entered lunar orbit on the 14th and landed on the 15th. As usual, they wanted to land just after local dawn, with the Sun about 8 degrees up. Now, the terminator on the 13th is shown on the meridian, it moves about 12 degrees per day, and the landing site is 18 degrees west, so you want to land late on the 15th don't you... which means that while you're travelling to the moon, the site is in predawn darkness... "
9:57 A.M. HUb' RED SHIFT has a short video
showing a landing beyound the terminator
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-03-12 10:33 ]</font>
unfortunatly there's NOT documentation i can
find to show which landing was being touted? 13? {boo anyway}

jkmccrann
2005-Oct-21, 05:37 PM
Have to agree with the point you're making here Jay.

Van Rijn
2005-Oct-21, 10:22 PM
jkmccrann, I'm curious - you seem to be bumping a lot of extremely old threads. Why? They can be interesting, but there are more recent topics to discuss.

Matherly
2005-Oct-21, 10:29 PM
I myself am partial to the "Undead Zombie Thread" theory I first mention here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=6745)

Van Rijn
2005-Oct-21, 10:58 PM
That makes a certain kind of sense: Return of the Undead Threads ... the Bit Bucket is full and can't hold them all anymore. Or perhaps it is some kind of radiation.

Well, that would be a decent conspiracy theory, at any rate.

jkmccrann
2005-Oct-22, 06:54 AM
True enough, I guess its interesting to see how many conversations come and go and don't really change that much, a look through the evolution of the arguments that seem to suggest no matter how much we talk aout such things some people, indeed most, hold rigidly to their views.

Moon hoax is a perfect case in point, I find it completely amazing that some people truly believe the whole thing was a hoax, despite all the stacks of evidence to support it and despite their valued `theories` being disproved and explained at every turn. On top of all that, the simple fact is, us humans really aren't that good at keeping secrets, and to think those in the know could collectively hold their breathe on that particular secret for more than 30 years completely beggars belief. Completely.

genebujold
2005-Oct-23, 08:28 PM
Clearly Percy's intended audience are the people who lack the skill or foresight to divide 360 degrees by 29 days. That's fine if the blind want to lead the blind and exchange money between them. But the Percy book and video are billed as "incontrovertible" evidence that the Apollo record was falsified. And of course the real problem is that a generation of impressionable kids are growing up with this tripe being paraded around as a viable theory. What kind of scientists is the world going to produce in the future if this sort of nonsense is not revealed for what it is?

Exactly. As evidenced by their own actions, Percy and his kind have absolutely no desire whatsoever to increase their understanding on any subject whatsoever, and appear to have every desire to increase their income on any subject at hand.

This would certainly account for the money-grubbing nature of their arguements given here and elsewhere.

jrkeller
2005-Oct-25, 02:24 PM
Speaking of Dark Moon, there is a new positive review (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1898541108/ref=cm_pdp_review_teaser_product/002-3919370-9820061) on amazon.com

JayUtah
2005-Oct-25, 05:23 PM
The gist of the review is: the negative reviewers seem harsh and bitter, therefore they must be wrong.

In other words, he ignores completely the factual points that are made and tries to handwave vaguely toward an emotional argument. It doesn't matter that the "harsh and bitter" reviewers find instance after instance where Bennett and Percy are misleading, unfair, or just plain wrong. People who lie repeatedly for profit -- however miniscule -- generally don't elicit charitable reactions from others.

We see the standard projectionism: we "harsh and bitter" reviewers are simply holding tenaciously onto what we want to believe irrespective of fact, and our alleged emotionalism is evidence of that. But this reviewer titles his essay paradoxically "A fact is an opinion." Why is it, then, that we -- the Harsh and Bitter Posse -- are the ones toting out facts and asking to have them reconciled with the authors' claims? When one side is so conspicuously talking about fact and the other side is so conspicuously waxing pontifical over conjectured emotional and financial motivatios, it's hard to argue that the fact-based contestants are the ones who are delusional.

We see the standard guilt-by-association: we will never know the truth about Kennedy or Apollo either. Well, we certainly won't so long as fabrication, innuendo, and error are considered as evidentially valid as observation, science, and documentation. In fact we can know the truth about Apollo if we apply appropriate rigor. No amount of sobbing compensates for the inability of Dark Moon to withstand scrutiny by qualified experts. It's not about who has the "big money", as the reviewer states. It's about who has the truth. You can't buy truth.

The reviewer gives Dark Moon only four stars out of five, according to the argument that even the best authors make mistakes. Yes, they do, but the ability to face up to and correct those mistakes is what separates good fallible authors from bad fallible authors. The bad fallible authors do what Bennett and Percy have done when faced with well-founded criticism: they run and hide.

That review is an excellent example of the distractionary approach of conspiracism. They'll talk about anything but fact. Instead of showing where the "harsh and bitter" responses are wrong -- if indeed they are -- the reviewer simply tries every trick in the book to insinuate that the bad reviews must be in error. That reviewer is exactly the gullible sort of reader that Bennett and Percy had in mind.

genebujold
2005-Oct-25, 10:09 PM
Oh my God, folks. I can't believe that this subject is even up for discussion. This is simple math, at it's best and is unbelievably and incontrovertably verifiable at it's worst.

Please stop wasting your time and start discussing something else.

Thanks.

Josh
2005-Oct-26, 10:00 PM
genebujold, if you don't like some discussions feel free not to take part in them. You've been warned recently by ToSeek here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=586585&postcount=12) and asked to temper your language and tone. Consider this your second and final warning. Please be more polite when posting.

DRAKCIPS
2008-Nov-09, 11:59 PM
Why is the earth always enshrouded in darkness and no light from the sun radiates the space between them, only the surface is illuminated?
If a scale model were made i think it would demonstrate that light from the sun would be present but would also reveal somthing between the planets.
After all we see the moon in day light and darkness. Ive never seen the earth in day light except from my point of view down here.
mts

Van Rijn
2008-Nov-10, 12:21 AM
Note: Thread resurrection. Very old thread - this appears to be The Return of the Return of the Undead Thread. (http://www.bautforum.com/583877-post20.html) :)


Why is the earth always enshrouded in darkness and no light from the sun radiates the space between them, only the surface is illuminated?


Welcome to BAUT. There isn't much in space around the Earth, so there isn't much to reflect the sun's light. There is some dust, however, and this causes what we call zodiacal light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiacal_light):


The zodiacal light is produced by sunlight reflecting off dust particles in the solar system known as cosmic dust. Consequently, its spectrum is the same as the solar spectrum. The material producing the zodiacal light is located in a lens-shaped volume of space centered on the sun and extending well out beyond the orbit of Earth. This material is known as the interplanetary dust cloud. Since most of the material is located near the plane of the solar system, the zodiacal light is seen along the ecliptic.

Since the dust is so thin, the reflected light is very faint, so will only be seen under careful and specific observation conditions, but it is there.

hhEb09'1
2008-Nov-10, 12:25 AM
Note: Thread resurrection. Very old thread - this appears to be The Return of the Return of the Undead Thread. (http://www.bautforum.com/583877-post20.html) :)HUb''s in the house! :)

Welcome to BAUT, DRAKCIPS

novaderrik
2008-Nov-10, 04:49 AM
it's good to know that even 6.5 years ago we had JayUtah to tear these theories apart in a comforting and non threatening manner.

nomuse
2008-Nov-10, 04:52 AM
HUb''s in the house! :)



That was my first thought, too!

Mellow
2008-Nov-10, 01:22 PM
he heh, yup indeedy.