PDA

View Full Version : An HB site with a different approach...



Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-09, 05:05 PM
Humour!

http://www.neosoft.com/~cshramek/nasafake.htm

The author points out that the lunar rocks should be liberally coated with moondust, as with the moons surface.
The LEM's thruster would have blown mostly downwards and anyway new dust would have been thrown up to cover any lifted of nearby rocks, I think this guy has a very good point.

Experiment:
Open a couple of bag of flour, throw them up in the air and let the particles settle on potatoes.
The slopes of flour will reach a finite angle and any surplus will fall on the surface below.
The rocks (potatoes) should appear like the sand in the base of an egg timer. (OK...I admit, I'm recreated the moon in my kitchen, but its a valid experiment).
Micrometeorite storms responsible for the rounding of the lunar rocks (so say the Apollo believers) would as easily hit the surface and scoop up more dust to cover any bare rocks.

http://www.neosoft.com/~cshramek/clemfake.htm

Very interesting those blur marks on the Clementine photo. Alien structures perhaps or perhaps a alien fly splat on the lens?
To see best the skullduggery, I recommend the highest resolution, i.e. a setting of 1 pixel/km at 768x768. Different e.m . frequency settings make little or no difference.
The only visible sensor setting is UVVIS (UltaViolet/VISual?). Perhaps NASA should add their own - 'UFO' (Ufo F**k Off)

N.B. The numerous 2-3 mile diameter UFO's from the 1996 STS-75 space-shuttle mission were captured with an ultra-violet camera.
I think NASA will be usung infra-red and journeying only to red planets soon!

I also agree with the authors political stance. The US has a lot to explain.
Please also visit his home page.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Slime (Silky Smooth) on 2002-04-09 13:25 ]</font>

Firefox
2002-Apr-09, 05:20 PM
As BA is fond of saying, the Moon is not the Earth.

As for the image in the second link, chalk it up to computer aberrations. It doesn't look very peculiar to me.

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-09, 05:29 PM
I cant chalk it up to computer problems any more than I can pretend JFK's brain was mistaken by a cleaner and swept into the garbage.
A human (or reptillian) hand is responsible.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-09, 05:30 PM
OK...I admit, I'm recreated the moon in my kitchen, but its a valid experiment.

It's not a valid experiment if it's done with flour, in air, in earth gravity. If you change all that, and note that it bears little resemblance to the lunar environment as portrayed in the Apollo record, consider carefully where the source of the divergence is likely to lie.

Very interesting those blur marks on the Clementine photo.

Data dropouts.

I also agree with the authors political stance. The US has a lot to explain.

Perhaps, but not on the basis of any of this. Why is it that hoax believers always have a major problem with the U.S. government? Why can't they seem to separate the issue of evidence for a hoax from their invectives against government?

ToSeek
2002-Apr-09, 05:33 PM
You might note that this is the same guy (now deceased) who started the whole furor over the alleged spaceship trailing Hale-Bopp.

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-09, 05:39 PM
You might note that this is the same guy (now deceased) who started the whole furor over the alleged spaceship trailing Hale-Bopp.

I'm not at all surprised the author is dead.
Like the other conspiracies he mentions on his home page, many more had to die to keep us in blissful ignorance of the evil in our world.

Firefox
2002-Apr-09, 05:41 PM
On 2002-04-09 13:33, ToSeek wrote:
You might note that this is the same guy (now deceased) who started the whole furor over the alleged spaceship trailing Hale-Bopp.



So that explains that funny split in Hale-Bopp's tail. I wonder if Dapted's tried using this to his advantage. :)

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-09, 05:47 PM
Jay:

Your horses for courses lecture is invalid, I'm afraid.
If you wish to lecture that the moon's lower gravititational pull should be a factor that needs to be considered...
I'd have to agree with you! (sic) /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif
For a lower gravity would only help to build higher moondust mounds.
I'm ignoring the water bonding properties in my kitchen (earths atmosphere) as the Velcro properties of moondust (your theory) would counteract the environmental differences. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

DaveC
2002-Apr-09, 06:27 PM
Slime said: "For a lower gravity would only help to build higher moondust mounds.
I'm ignoring the water bonding properties in my kitchen (earths atmosphere) as the Velcro properties of moondust (your theory) would counteract the environmental differences."

You are also ignoring the difference between a 14.7 psi atmosphere and a vacuum. Dust particles on the moon don't gently settle on the surface, they plummet down and bounce off if the surface they impact is hard. A better comparison on earth is dropping steel balls onto a rock that is sitting on a soft surface - sand will do. See how long you need to do this from head height to create a pile of them on the surface of the rock.
Flour in air falling on potatoes is about as far away as your "experiment" could be from duplicating conditions on the moon.

Now consider the other factor - the moon is still seismically active and additionally continues to be pounded by meteors of significant size. Once you've got some of your steel balls to stay on your test rock, whack the rock a few times from various directions with a sledge hammer. See how the balls roll off the side and start to form a little pile around the base of the rock - just like you can see with the dust at the base of rocks in many of the lunar photos.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-04-09 14:41 ]</font>

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-09, 07:24 PM
You are also ignoring the difference between a 14.7 psi atmosphere and a vacuum. Dust particles on the moon don't gently settle on the surface, they plummet down and bounce off if the surface they impact is hard.

OK. So little silicon balls bounce of every hard surface and leave no trace except where they can fall no more, ie the moons surface. That would explain why the landing pads were spotless too.
The dust is extremely fine though. Dont you think that some of it would have been wedged in that crevaces of rocks and compacted as Velcro does.

Remember you answer may mortify Jay.

I wont argue this point as I can see what you saying makes some sense.

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-09, 07:26 PM
Now consider the other factor - the moon is still seismically active...

Or artificially hollow.

Fair points.

DaveC
2002-Apr-09, 07:38 PM
It's irrelevant how fine it is. It all falls at the same speed. Sure if a particle happened to plummet into a crack in a rock it might get wedged there, but that's a lot different than piling up on the surface as you suggest.
The foot pads on the lander had no dust on them (other than what may have been kicked there by the astronauts) for a different reason. By the time they hit the ground, the dust under the lander had all been blown out to the sides and had hit the ground or bounced away if it happened to hit a hard surface like a rock. The lander descended slowly - the rocket exhaust had cleared the ground right under the lander of loose particles which had all landed before the foot pads entered the area where the displaced dust had been flying.
You have to forget your earthly experience of how dust behaves in an atmosphere before you can start to understand the mechanics on the moon.

DaveC
2002-Apr-09, 07:44 PM
"Or artificially hollow"

Well, it could be - what's your point?
If the moon is hollow, it has a fantastically dense shell in order for it to have the mass necessary to cause tides on earth. How thick would you suggest the shell around this hollow interior might be? I'd be interested in calculating what kind of material it might be made of.

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-09, 08:06 PM
Well, it could be (artificially hollow) - what's your point?

Certain discrepencies about the neutral point. But I need to do more research before I go into any detail.
I didnt mean to imply the moon was totally hollow or artificial. Just fixed in place (one side only ever showing) with hollowed out areas for mining and shelter from meteorite impact.
They need somewhere to park their 3 mile diameter space craft. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

JayUtah
2002-Apr-09, 08:21 PM
Remember you answer may mortify Jay.

Um, no, he's giving the answer I gave at ApolloHoax when this question came up, and which would still be there under better circumstances.

DaveC is quite correct, and I maintain that your experiment is inaccurate.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-04-09 16:23 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Apr-09, 08:22 PM
But I need to do more research before I go into any detail.

Make sure your research involves more than reading William Brian's book or web treatments of his argument.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-09, 08:26 PM
... as the Velcro properties of moondust (your theory) would counteract the environmental differences.

Incorrect. The matrix forming argument describes how the regolith behaves under compaction and bulk settling, which is irrelevant to your argument.

DaveC
2002-Apr-09, 08:28 PM
"THEY" would be more likely to park their spacecraft somewhere in the vicinity of where "THEY" live. And if "THEY" chose the back side of the moon to dig their three mile in diameter hole, how come none of the photos taken of that side of the moon by both Russian and American orbiters - including manned orbiters - show any evidence of that. It's an interesting speculation that there's an alien presence on the moon, but I'd need a lot more evidence than idle speculation to sway me. I see no logical reason to assume extraterrestrial intelligence would have any reason to show up in our region of an essentially infinite universe.

There is no neutral point anomaly - just different methods of looking at the same thing. In a static system, it's easy to pinpoint the neutral point - you only need to know the masses of the two objects. But in an orbital mechanics analysis where the spacecraft is moving toward a moving satellite, the distance it HAS travelled compared to the distance it has left to travel when it is at the neutral point is different than the static calculation will give, because for Apollo, the moon had a velocity vector toward the spacecraft during its outbound trip. That is, the craft was aimed at where the moon was GOING TO BE when Apollo got to lunar orbit. This "anomaly" seems to have arisen because people have forgotten their grade school geometry.

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-09, 09:11 PM
"THEY" would be more likely to park their spacecraft somewhere in the vicinity of where "THEY" live. And if "THEY" chose the back side of the moon to dig their three mile in diameter hole, how come none of the photos taken of that side of the moon by both Russian and American orbiters - including manned orbiters - show any evidence of that.

Simply, the pictures have been doctored or expained away as natural structures.
Secrecy over UFOs/Aliens applies to Russia as well as the US (and the UK). China is also very secretive, over just about everything.
The one country that seems to fear the truth most now is America. They have a high place in the worlds economy and must be quite happy about the status quo. New (actually old) fuel systems that would bring third-world countries economic prosperity would worry the failing US economy. Bush and his CIA father wouldnt much like their oil wealth disappearing either. Their election campaign funders know there money was very well spent.

Russian cosmonauts and current generals are now speaking out about their experiences and while they keep their high level positions. Why lie?
Seriously the evidence is everywhere. You must get down to http://www.disclosureproject.org and see/hear the testimonies of the 'crackpots'.
I'm sorry if this shocks you, but there it is. You may think that UFOs are purely US/Tesla secret craft, but the history of foo-fighters, seen by all major countries predates Tesla and even the Nazis.
I could 'just' be wrong about all of this, but the evidence I have seen with my own eyes, first hand and NASA's own STS-75 footage and Mexican videos, leads me to believe the evidence is overwhelming.
Name me a recent president of the United States who doesnt believe in them? Forget the Bush's. Theyre reptillians anyway. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

It's an interesting speculation that there's an alien presence on the moon, but I'd need a lot more evidence than idle speculation to sway me. I see no logical reason to assume extraterrestrial intelligence would have any reason to show up in our region of an essentially infinite universe.

Life is plentiful here and I have no doubt plentiful elsewhere. Basically inter-dimensional travel and psychic thought transference (something I have experienced too) means they can be anywhere they like and instantly.
I will post the STS-75 evidence here at the end of this thread by tomorrow. Hope I dont get banned for swaying from the ApolloHoax subject.
It would be interesting to hear what kind of ice crystals exhibit these properties from you experts.

There is no neutral point anomaly - just different methods of looking at the same thing. In a static system, it's easy to pinpoint the neutral point - you only need to know the masses of the two objects.

Yeah, but apparently NASA didnt know and the Apollo 11 crew were somewhat off course.
NASA forgot their school geometry?
Perhaps they thought they wouldnt need it in a movie studio?
Interesting how one put-to-bed anomaly brings up yet another.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-09, 09:13 PM
Mr. Brian made a very common mistake. Basic physics indeed gives one conceptualization of the neutral point, but not one that's particularly useful for planning a space voyage.

Fig. 7.4-1 in Bate, et al., Fundamentals of Astrodynamics (p. 336) gives a much better conceptualization of the neutral point (i.e., the intersection of the translunar trajectory with the moon's sphere of influence) as it relates to actual orbits.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-09, 09:17 PM
Yeah, but apparently NASA didnt know and the Apollo 11 crew were somewhat off course.
NASA forgot their school geometry?

It is not a question of geometry but one of empirical corrections to the theoretical model. The moon does not present a uniform gravitational field, therefore the theoretical models must be refined progressively by empirical calibrations. This is why pinpoint landing was not a requirement for Apollo 11.

DaveC
2002-Apr-09, 09:40 PM
"I will post the STS-75 evidence here at the end of this thread by tomorrow."

I've seen that, and I suspect most of the others have too. What does it have to do with a three mile wide spacecraft dug into a hole on the far side of the moon?

With all due respect here, you are sucking and blowing. Humans, by your argument, couldn't have gone to the moon, but for some extra solar system, (or extra galactic) life form to be here is no problem. I'm having some real difficulty with tracing your neural patterns. You are fantasizing in a Star Trek world that doesn't accord with the physical universe. Tossing out interdimensional travel and psychic thought transferrence as possible mechanisms isn't proof of anything. Could we stick to a factual discussion of observables rather than wild speculation?

"Simply, the pictures have been doctored or expained away as natural structures"

Wild speculation! The pictures taken independently by two "enemy' countries were doctored in exactly the same way???? Just possibly they ARE natural features? Give your head a shake.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-04-09 17:53 ]</font>

AstroMike
2002-Apr-09, 09:50 PM
On 2002-04-09 17:40, DaveC wrote:
With all due respect here, you are sucking and blowing. Humans, by your argument, couldn't have gone to the moon, but for some extra solar system, (or extra galactic) life form to be here is no problem.

I think he's believes in Richard Hoagland's arguments, but probably doesn't realize that Hoagland does not believe the Moon Landings were hoaxed.

DaveC
2002-Apr-09, 09:56 PM
I can't tell exactly what it is Slime believes. He's all over the map. I guess anything other than the official government version of events would be OK for him.

jrkeller
2002-Apr-09, 10:08 PM
OK let's get started.

I have worked on this problem of dust deposition on the lunar surface for about ten years. There actually is a lot of data on the LM engines moving the dust across the lunar surface. NASA SP-284, Analysis of Surveyor 3 Material and Photographs Returned by Apollo 12, is a good place to start. This is a fairly difficult book to find, but most big libraries should have it. There have been many papers written on the subject, you just got to look in the right places, i.e. Universities. Try the proceedings of the Lunar and Planetary Institute yearly conference. BTW, these papers are peer-reviewed, so it's not like some people got together and made a book. If the website referenced, provided a critic of the papers and scientific or engineering formulas as to why these papers are wrong, they would help the moon hoax cause a lot. ***LIKE THAT WOULD EVER HAPPEN***

Well on to Apollo 12. When Pete Conrad and Alan Bean examined Surveyor III, they were amazed at the amount of dust on the vehicle. They noticed that thickest coatings occurred in the direction of the LM. They surmised, and quite correctly, that the dust came from the LM descent engine, even the LM was over 400 feet away. Post flight analysis confirmed their hypothesis.

After the mission was over, simple models were developed. These were easy to develop, since there is no atmosphere on the moon. The movement of dust in a gas or the movement of dust by a gas (entrainment) can be a difficult problem to solve. The entrainment of the dust by the LM exhaust was a difficult problem to solve, since the gas expands to a vacuum while it's carrying the dust with it. The lunar landings were the first time that a problem of this size had been examined. After the gas expands to a vacuum (about 100 ft from the center of the nozzle), the dust follows the simple parabolic trajectory common to all projectiles. For the LM, some dust is ejected to over a mile away. In other words, the exhaust gets the dust moving and then it free falls to a new location.

The problem that HBs forget is that on the moon there is no air and things behave much differently.

The real process is much more complicated, but I simplified it for the purposes of this Bulliten Board.

jrkeller
2002-Apr-09, 10:17 PM
Since we've been taking about dust movement on the moon, there is another force that moves dust, sunlight.

The incoming solar energy creates electrostatic forces in the dust and this also moves the dust.

When I find the link, I'll post it.

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-09, 11:39 PM
I've seen (the STS-75 evidence), and I suspect most of the others have too. What does it have to do with a three mile wide spacecraft dug into a hole on the far side of the moon?

Maybe you have but maybe some others havent. You didnt give an explaination as to what you think it is. Perhaps you are mistaking it with other missions. Your other question is better answered by Dr Greer.

Humans, by your argument, couldn't have gone to the moon, but for some extra solar system, (or extra galactic) life form to be here is no problem.

Firstly I do not say we didnt go to the moon. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif
I will just state that lies are being told by NASA. As to extra-galactic lifeforms having more sophisticated technology than us, I really dont see your problem with the idea unless you are a God created man first disciple and the rest of the universe should be trailing behind.
Perhaps I misunderstand your comments but I certainly dont understand your logic.

You are fantasizing in a Star Trek world that doesn't accord with the physical universe.

Twins reading each others thoughts from different continents simultaneously. Would you deny it? Thought transference may be just this. Quantum physics would suggest some not yet undertood invisible link is very real. The science has been done and accepted by your peers. I confess I dont understand it.

Tossing out interdimensional travel and psychic thought transferrence as possible mechanisms isn't proof of anything. Could we stick to a factual discussion of observables rather than wild speculation?

But you wont even believe your eyes! Ask NASA what the objects were and they will tell you lies. As always, why lie? That is the question we should all be asking. The truth will be in what theyre hiding.

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-09, 11:49 PM
Anyway heres the 'hidden' footage I promised...

NASA admit to UFO sighting (sort of)
====================================
Astronauts aboard the 1996 Space Shuttle mission (STS-75) took video footage of a 12 mile long tether which broke off its satellite mounting and trailed the space-shuttle by 77 nautical miles.
Numerous disc-shaped objects can be easily seen to pass 'behind' the tether, indicating the UFOs can be no smaller than two to three miles in diameter. In other words, they are not ice crystals or space debris. Many of these object can be seen which have a dark or hollowed-out centre.

From my temporary web site http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/slime/

Look at this first: tetherhq02rm.zip
Its is a very low resolution real media file but you will get the idea from the astronauts voices what is happening.

View the much higher quality (but silent) tetherbroad.wmv and check out the triangular openings which appear and disappear at opposite sides of the discs.

There are three further short clips and more detailed explainations here:
http://www.ufonasa.com/footage.htm

No less than The Good Ole' Boy Dan 'Elwood' Aykroyd is a supporter of this footage.

A remarkable similarity to these UFOs was captured on video by an English woman in Derbyshire (Oct 2000) indicates that NASA are lying to the public as to what they know. The BBC even censor the triangular opening.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1363000/1363848.stm

A Hollywood producer, my word deleted by the BA! CIA.

NASA now refuse to make their footage available for public scrutiny.

Sure beats those fossilised nematode worms on Mars, doesnt it?

NASA - Never Admits Sighting Aliens.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-04-09 20:47 ]</font>

jrkeller
2002-Apr-10, 12:57 AM
Dust Levitation as promised

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/top_10_weird_list-7.html

AstroMike
2002-Apr-10, 01:14 AM
On 2002-04-09 19:49, Slime (Silky Smooth) wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1363000/1363848.stm
This has been discussed before in this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=608&forum=1&19).

jrkeller
2002-Apr-10, 01:28 AM
First of all, the STS-75 video, is not hidden video, I was able to find it off the Marshall SpaceFlight Center Server.

Two, the video is typical of what most hoaxers do. Take a small section of video or photo, blow it up to a really large size and let photographic distortion create all kinds of effects.

If the claim that the tether is 12 miles long, (I read the NASA reports so I know that the tether broke at 12 miles) by simple measurements the tether is at least 1/4 wide. Now I've seen the shuttle close up and I can tell you that it isn't that wide or even that long, so something is wrong with the photo. The tether has probably coiled up (you can get that be reading the NASA press releases, again freely available) so it is really not 12 miles long. ***DO SOME RESEARCH!!!***

See this

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/STS-75/media/photo/coil1.jpg

To me the video looks like a jellyfish.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Apr-10, 01:28 AM
Why is the navy blurring areas of the pics of the moon? This is not lost data.
<a href=http://www.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clib/generated_images/88668420256.gif>This aint right</a>

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-10, 01:50 AM
the video is typical of what most hoaxers do. Take a small section of video or photo, blow it up to a really large size and let photographic distortion create all kinds of effects.

Ha Ha. Looks like someone took alternate slices out of the space-cake then whipped the cherry of the top. Photographic distortions my a*s. I was asked to provide proof and as I expected the typical unscientific responses from so-called scientists.
It was just too much for you to stomach. Thats the real issue.

Did anyone see the photographic distortion in tetherboard.wmv? If so explain the effect.
I will leave others with 20/20 visions to
generate more intelligent diagnoses.
I'm not holding my breath.

Also the BBC new report was a hoax, right?

If the claim that the tether is 12 miles long, (I read the NASA reports so I know that the tether broke at 12 miles) by simple measurements the tether is at least 1/4 wide. Now I've seen the shuttle close up and I can tell you that it isn't that wide or even that long, so something is wrong with the photo. The tether has probably coiled up (you can get that be reading the NASA press releases, again freely available) so it is really not 12 miles long. ***DO SOME RESEARCH!!!***

How long buddy? 12 inches? I'd listen to the astronaut again on the shuttle. They are estimating a distance of 77 nauticle miles. Even if by some remarkable error in calculation, they are wrong by a factor of 77, it still is the most remarkable footage of expelled astronaut urine ever to be captured on film.

Ref: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/STS-75/media/photo/coil1.jpg

Looks more like the flight path of the Challenger disaster, and not what was seen in space.
How quick NASA and its stooges are to cover up. The tether is not coiled. It's as erect as I am on a good day! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Slime (Silky Smooth) on 2002-04-09 21:55 ]</font>

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-10, 01:59 AM
81 nautical miles from Columbia when the UFO's come out of inter-dimensional mode of flight. Are your ears bad too?

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-10, 02:02 AM
Why is the navy blurring areas of the pics of the moon? This is not lost data.

I think the Apollo Believers will answer that one by stating NASA, or whoever the censor was, blurred out the digital data as it was misleading or unsightly.
They always have an answer!

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Apr-10, 02:03 AM
Look folks:

It is becoming increasingly clear that nothing will convince Slime of what's going on. No matter what happens, he does not trust NASA, and clearly trusts none of us.

Slime, if you don't listen to any of the explanations given to you, why do you post here? This is a straight question. I have seen people patiently explain the "problems" you see in the data, the videos and the evidence, yet you persist. So again: why keep posting here?

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-10, 02:15 AM
This has been discussed before in this thread.

Thanx for the info AstroMike. Ian R must have purloined one of my threads eleswhere. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

The Bad Astronomer (Bad photographer too) put it down to probably an out-of-focus camera.
I think we generally look at what we're shooting at an can realise all too well if what we see is what we got in the can.
I too am an able photographer and seen out of focus imagery together with phenomenon caused by various types of electronic feedback.
No way is it that!
You lot of the biggest doubting Thomas's I have ever come across.

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-10, 02:18 AM
Sound like you want me to go? When I hear something that is tangeable to the truth I submit gracefully.
You only have to look back in this thread for one such example of my open-mindedness.

Give me truth not fairy-tales.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-10, 02:22 AM
Could it be, Slime, that you are simply more interested in argument for argument's sake than in any particular conclusion?

AstroMike
2002-Apr-10, 02:24 AM
On 2002-04-09 22:15, Slime (Silky Smooth) wrote:
You lot of the biggest doubting Thomas's I have ever come across.

And you're one of the biggest conspiracy crackpots I have ever seen.

Please seek professional help. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-10, 02:25 AM
Let me expand BA. The suggestion is that the video footages is blown-up too such high proportions that photographic or electronic artifacts became visible.
It is clear that the discs are not blown up by anything more than the zoom lens.
Furthermore NASA would not use cheap sub-standard lenses on their TV cameras.
The centre and wedge cut-outs are visible even at this level.
Choose to believe my version or not, but dont think numbers of those agreeing or diagreeing with me concern me either way.

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-10, 02:32 AM
Could it be, Slime, that you are simply more interested in argument for argument's sake than in any particular conclusion?

Only when it concerns you old buddy. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
I simply insist the video footage is genuine and backed it up with corroborating evidence.
Either NASA can explain to the BBC that they didnt show an interest an claer it up or you will have to keep your criticisms on hold a while longer.
Whats more, Hollywood producers have the contacts in the photographic side of movie making to smell such a rat.
He didnt.

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-10, 02:41 AM
And you're one of the biggest conspiracy crackpots I have ever seen.

Ever seen? But I only post text here. Oh my God. You've hacked my web cam and are downloading my image arent you?
If you post pictures of any of the five supermodels I have tucked up in bed behind me, I will sue!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Slime (Silky Smooth) on 2002-04-09 22:43 ]</font>

jrkeller
2002-Apr-10, 03:00 AM
Ok so you don't want to believe it's coiled, fine with me, then how do you explain that it's 1/4 mile wide? No tricks, just simple math.

I deal in numbers and formulas all day long. Give me some. For example, if the UFO in is 2-3 miles in diameter, how did you calculate that? What assumptions did you use? It's size depends on how close it was to the tether. How did you choose that?

Since it is 2-3 miles in diameter, how about some visual sightings from the ground. You can see the shuttle (about 200 ft long) in orbit with the naked eye, if you know where to look. Some thing 50 to 100 times larger and pulsating should be very easy to spot. I'm not talking NORAD, I'm talking about your amateur astronomer or just somebody walking down the street.

I have no problem believing in UFOs, ETs, etc, just show me proof.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Apr-10, 03:07 AM
<a href=http://cseti.homesite.net:7071/ramgen/sight4027_nellisufoss.rm>Is this proof?</a>

jrkeller
2002-Apr-10, 03:50 AM
Watched. It looked OK, but it still suffers like all UFO videos do. Out of focus and jerky. Honestly, it look like a fixed object and the camera was being jerked around. I couldn't see any background, so I couldn't make a judgement. At least this piece, tried to do some analysis of the footage, but again that too was out of focus.

I find it interesting that many people with just a camcorder and no professional training have captured some extremely fine footage of spectacular events, like twisters, or the WTC airplane crashes, but when it comes to something like a UFO, it's always out of focus, poor video quality, etc.

My opinion about Area 51. It's silly to think that after the SR-71 Blackbird was developed that the Air Force gave up testing of hypersonic vehicles and I believe that what many people think they see there as UFO are just Air Force test vehicles.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-04-09 23:53 ]</font>

Slime (Silky Smooth)
2002-Apr-10, 04:20 AM
Ok so you don't want to believe it's coiled, fine with me, then how do you explain that it's 1/4 mile wide? No tricks, just simple math.

No its not coiled is it? Coiled means to resemble a coil.

I deal in numbers and formulas all day long.

I hope your not in statistics! It wont impress me.
I'm bit of a number cruncher myself, although I dont like to brag.

Give me some. For example, if the UFO in is 2-3 miles in diameter, how did you calculate that? What assumptions did you use? It's size depends on how close it was to the tether. How did you choose that?

Brace your self for some high-level math(s). I didnt know the tether was 1/4 mile wide, but I am willing to take your word for it. The UFO's in the higher resolution clip, I provided, are clearly seen travelling behind the tether, ie they are more distant. This is the point!
What's more, the UFO will quite happily eclipse 4 tether widths if the UFO was just a hair breadth in front of/or behind the tether. From my own calculations, taking your 1/4 mile claim as gospel, the craft must be a minimum of 1 mile across. As it is behind the tether, it could be much greater. Either way NASA or the Ruskies didnt put it up.

Since it is 2-3 miles in diameter, how about some visual sightings from the ground. You can see the shuttle (about 200 ft long) in orbit with the naked eye, if you know where to look. Some thing 50 to 100 times larger and pulsating should be very easy to spot. I'm not talking NORAD, I'm talking about your amateur astronomer or just somebody walking down the street.

...a swarm of UFOs flurried about the Tether and satellite as Space Shuttle Astronaut, Claude Nicollier, took video footage (using a hand-held black & white video camera designed to see into the "Near Ultraviolet" invisible to the human eye) of what appeared to be over fifty, pulsing giant UFOs.

Ultraviolet may be the clue here. Interdimensional craft which when de-cloaked can be seen only in the uv will be hard to spot, especially at night.

I have no problem believing in UFOs, ETs, etc, just show me proof.

I'm glad you dont, but dont put it about here, they think we're mad.
I wish I could track down a very special UFO clip seen years ago in Mexico or Brazil. That would confirm all to you. I'll keep searching for it.

BTW I was about to upload a still taken from 3 secs into the high-rez clip, supporting my mathematic calculations, when my site came back invalid!
Its quick to be booted of Angelfire, particularly when I hadnt broken any of the rules. I wont go into conspiracy mode, but someone didnt like it.

2002-Apr-10, 08:53 AM
<a name="20020410.2:38"> page 20020410.2:38 aka "ROUND ROCKS"
On 2002-04-09 18:08, jrkeller wrote:
OK let's get started.



Well on to Apollo 12.

YEAH BELIVE WHAT YOU WANT. i belive i was
LIE`ed to then & Lied to now2. & no i've
no idea just WHAT LIE was what. Anyway as far
as Me going to the moon. I'd look for Bones
from Dinosaurs, not Oil or Gold or even Moon bug{gi}es
Now that round rocks have been mentioned? I`d also look for "Round Rocks" .. no i'll not go, not this week forget it.

Firefox
2002-Apr-10, 11:55 AM
Okay, someone's been watching Star Trek a bit too much. My advice: ignore the guy. He'll go away, or amuse himself with his own threads. The best way to handle this is to just laugh at him, because he obviously wants to bend the scientific method his way.


-Adam

Andrew
2002-Apr-10, 12:10 PM
Evidence for alien space craft would be a good way for NASA to get a large budget increase.
What incentive would NASA have for covering-up such evidence?

DaveC
2002-Apr-10, 01:25 PM
"Evidence for alien space craft would be a good way for NASA to get a large budget increase.
What incentive would NASA have for covering-up such evidence?"

The argument of the paranoid conspiracists has always been that there would be mass public hysteria if the great unwashed ever found out that aliens are, or have been visiting the planet. There is no rational basis for this assumption - although undoubtedly there will be some unstable folks who may be triggered to do something odd. Those people would have ultimately found some other trigger anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Only a moment of rational thought is necessary for one to realize that if aliens are visiting earth, it hasn't materially affected the lives of any of us, so knowing about it wouldn't change a thing.

Of course, one could speculate that the aliens have a Star Trek-like prime directive and first contact protocols that got violated when some government types inadvertently found out they were here. So the aliens have threatened those in the know with some gruesome consequences if they ever reveal the secret. Ya, that's how an advanced species would behave! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Either earth has something the aliens want - in which case, presumably, they have the power to just take it, (or trade for it) or it has nothing they want, in which case they'd be long gone to somewhere else.
I think it's significant that all thes "sightings" started with the Roswell incident in 1947 - an incident that conspiracists are convinced arose from an alien visitation, and which many of us are just as convinced was totally related to the activities (perhaps secret) of earth-bound humans.

The parade of people providing "evidence" under the Disclosure Project have a mundane commonality - they claim to have seen something flying that they can't explain. It's a big leap of faith to conclude that those things MUST be alien spacecraft. The same applies to Slime's arguments about the STS 75 film. I guess I'd say "If the observations COULDN'T, under any circumstances, be attributable to alien spacecraft, what COULD be the source?" Both logic and the scientific method dictate looking at the issue this way first (since there is no irrefutable evidence of alien spacecraft) and ruling out the explanations that accord with what we know BEFORE invoking speculative mechanisms as the cause. Otherwise , one might just as well attribute the observations to magic.

DaveC
2002-Apr-10, 01:38 PM
Jay Utah said: "It is not a question of geometry but one of empirical corrections to the theoretical model. The moon does not present a uniform gravitational field, therefore the theoretical models must be refined progressively by empirical calibrations."

A physicist friend of mine says that the lunar mascons DO indeed create an uneven gravitational field, but he says this is such a minor consideration in calculating the neutral point that it need not be considered a factor. It became a significant issue as the Apollo craft approached lunar orbit because its orbital trajectory was not as predicted based on the lunar mass - hence the need to continually refine the theoretical models.
I don't know enough about this to know whether the non-uniform gravitational field affects the calculation of neutral point or not.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-10, 07:27 PM
Mascons do not materially affect the computation of the neutral point, but they significantly affect the accuracy of LOI and PDI manuevers and thus are relative to an argument that Apollo 11 was "off course".

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Apr-10, 07:52 PM
"The argument of the paranoid conspiracists has always been that there would be mass public hysteria if the great unwashed ever found out that aliens are, or have been visiting the planet. There is no rational basis for this assumption"



Im not trying to stir anything up but there is a rational basis for this assumption, its "mob psychology", and this always reminds me of a line that i think was from men in black:


"a person is smart, people are stupid"

P.S. mr. Bad astronomer I think your the only one I know of besides me who liked "Red Planet" /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

ToSeek
2002-Apr-10, 08:29 PM
On 2002-04-10 09:25, DaveC wrote:
"Evidence for alien space craft would be a good way for NASA to get a large budget increase.
What incentive would NASA have for covering-up such evidence?"

The argument of the paranoid conspiracists has always been that there would be mass public hysteria if the great unwashed ever found out that aliens are, or have been visiting the planet. There is no rational basis for this assumption - although undoubtedly there will be some unstable folks who may be triggered to do something odd.


This is when the PCs (paranoid conspiracists) start going on about the Brooking report, a paper obscure to all but PCs, written in the earliest days of NASA, which attempted to address many of the issues that NASA would have to face. One of them was the possibility of encountering superior alien intelligence, and it mentions the devastating effects of the most similar contacts we know, between Europeans and various primitive (to the Europeans, at least) tribes.

PCs believe that NASA is being run based on this report, even though there is no evidence for this except for the mere fact of the report's existence (and that NASA hasn't admitted that there are aliens).

The Enterprise Mission (home of many PCs) take on the Brookings Report (http://www.enterprisemission.com/brooking.html), with some of the appropriate pages scanned in.

jrkeller
2002-Apr-11, 01:30 AM
Here's a nice analysis of the STS-75 video and the "pulsing discs".

http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm

AstroMike
2002-Apr-11, 03:17 AM
On 2002-04-10 16:29, ToSeek wrote:
(and that NASA hasn't admitted that there are aliens).

No, but I think people like Slime like to think that because NASA hasn't admitted doesn't mean there are. Unfortunately, the UFO conspiracists are the ones who usually like to seek out public popularity, people like Steven Greer and Bob Lazar. The Moon Hoax conspiracists also like to have fame as well too. But it's not an excuse if they simply hate NASA or the US Government.

However, I think we should stay on the Moon Hoax topic. I'm not really interested in UFO's or aliens.

jrkeller
2002-Apr-11, 04:05 AM
I'll agree to that. This initial posting was about some aspects of the moon landings, but the subsequent response eventually ended up with UFOs, Area 51 and the usual.

These postings do reveal one aspect of the moon hoax, some people will never believe anything the government says or does, regardless on the facts.

DaveC
2002-Apr-11, 12:27 PM
"Mascons do not materially affect the computation of the neutral point, but they significantly affect the accuracy of LOI and PDI manuevers and thus are relative to an argument that Apollo 11 was "off course"."

Thanks, Jay. I think I'm clear on this now. Let's see if Slime now accepts that there was no neutral point discrepancy - just a simple answer by Brian to a complex issue that has been blown totally out of proportion by HBs.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-11, 01:06 PM
I agree with keeping the focus, but we have to also keep in mind that in the minds of nearly everyone who proposes it, the moon hoax theory is just one thread in a huge tapestry entitled, "The Gummint Is Lying".

The scientific approach to investigation is to whittle away irrelevancy and concentrate on the smallest unit of phenomena. The conspiracy theorist approach is exactly the opposite: to postulate innumerable interconnections and associations consistent with a worldview of deception by some anonymous and well-hidden elite.

Under that worldview, belief in one unit of the Global Conspiracy -- i.e., the moon hoax -- simply follows from belief in the whole. This is why conjectural arguments play such a big part. Scientific evaluation of one part of the moon hoax theory (even if it is rigorous and conclusive) does little to impact the worldview. In their minds, the hoax theory must be true. Therefore it does no good for them to hear a treatise on how implausible their scenarios are and how plausible some other alternative might be. To them the moon hoax is a fait accompli, and the question for them is not whether it was done, but how it was done. To satisfy this only mere possibility is required. That is, they believe they must merely formulate some possible means by which a hoax could be accomplished and their point is proved.

A similar pattern appears in the details of their arguments. "It must have been a studio light because no other possibility exists," says one. Of course no direct evidence of a studio light is offered. The light is simply proposed as a hypothesis to explain some observation the hoax believer says is anomalous. Sherlock Holmes is invoked, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains -- however improbable -- must be the truth." Mr. Doyle's popularity notwithstanding, that is hogwash. The hoax believers might just as well be saying, "Don't pay attention to the patent absurdity of what I'm proposing, or that I can't supply any direct evidence for it; you must believe in this process because it's the only way to achieve the observation." It is, of course, the common propaganda technique of the false dilemma. You are compelled to accept the conclusion, not convinced to do so.

"You must have an open mind," they say. But since their argument rests on limiting the number of possibilities, they only want you to be as open-minded as is required to accept their conclusions. Heaven forbid you should be so open-minded as to consider reflection from a space suit. "Open-minded" in their worldview means to accept their absurd conclusions without appropriate proof. And that's not open-mindedness, that's feeble-mindedness.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-11, 01:27 PM
Let's see if Slime now accepts that there was no neutral point discrepancy

But there is a discrepancy in neutral points, produced by the many definitions of the neutral point. Not all these definitions are intended to arrive at the same point. Brian's error was not in computation. That's why he has fooled so many people. Brian's error was in producing a neutral point correctly by Method A, taking a different neutral point produced correctly by Method B and retrofitting into Method A, and showing that wrong values must be applied in Method A to produce the results achieved by Method B.

But I see where you're going with this. You want to see if Slime will agree that both quotations of the neutral point have appropriate methods behind them, and that neither is necessarily "wrong".

just a simple answer by Brian to a complex issue that has been blown totally out of proportion by HBs.


Even a simple acknowledgement that the issue is complex would go a long way. Brian's disciples have faith in the One True Method of determining the neutral point. That is, whatever value is proposed must satisfy Brian's choice of method.

There is no point along a real translunar trajectory at which the gravitational forces of the earth and moon "cancel each other out". The so-called Lagrange points exist, but they do not lie on any of the Apollo trajectories. There is instead a point at which the magnitudes of the gravity vectors ("tensors", to use the correct mathematical nomenclature) are equal. The net force of gravity on the spacecraft -- as given by the tensor sum of the gravity of the earth, moon, and sun -- is never zero.

The crossover point -- where the spacecraft enters the lunar sphere of influence -- is "ahead" of the straight line connecting earth and moon, in the direction of the moon's orbital motion. This was the point chosen by navigators to have the spacecraft's computer switch from navigating in a geocentric frame to navigating in a moon-centered frame. But it most certainly is not the same point as the one which lies on the straight connecting line, equidistant in a gravitational sense from earth and moon.

DaveC
2002-Apr-11, 01:39 PM
"One of them was the possibility of encountering superior alien intelligence, and it mentions the devastating effects of the most similar contacts we know, between Europeans and various primitive (to the Europeans, at least) tribes."

But there isn't much evidence that those "primitives" in North and South America reacted with a mob psychology at all. The devastating effects, contrary to the Hollywood stories of "Indian" wars, were primarily because the native people had little immunity to European diseases like smallpox and tuberculosis, to name a couple that caused widespread death. It was the "advanced" culture that became the mob, not the primitive one.

DaveC
2002-Apr-11, 01:53 PM
"You want to see if Slime will agree that both quotations of the neutral point have appropriate methods behind them, and that neither is necessarily "wrong"."

Exactly. Perhaps I was a bit sloppy in my use of the word "discrepancy", but what I intended was to say that there is no deviation from the mathematically calculated neutral points - ie there is no neutral point anomaly.

Donnie B.
2002-Apr-11, 07:12 PM
Okay, I'd like to see if I have a valid mental picture of the neutral point issue.

First, let's define "neutral point" as being the point -- along any Earth-Moon trajectory -- at which the Moon's gravity begins to dominate.

If you consider the special case of the direct line between Earth and Moon, the neutral point coincides with the Lagrangian point... L1, I think. In this case, the gravitational tensors are both equal and opposite, and you have a true (though unstable) equilibrium.

But on any other route you take (including the Apollo trajectories), the neutral point (for that trajectory) will actually be farther from the Moon than the one in the first case. Also, all those points are not points of equilibrium, because the gravitational tensors are equal in magnitude but not opposite. For example, if your trajectory puts you in such a position that when you reach the neutral point, the tensor pointing to the Earth is at a five degree angle to the direct Earth-Moon line, then the tensor that points to the Moon makes a rather larger angle to that line, rather than pointing outward along the Earth-to-you line.

So. What I envision is a sort of parabolic surface (what's the word for a 3-dimensional parabola?) that is closest to the Moon at the Lagrangian point, and flares out and away from the Moon as you get further and further from that point. Or, perhaps, a bit like the drawings of the "bow shock" produced by Jupiter's magnetic field interacting with the solar wind.

Is this a reasonable way to visualize the neutral point -- as a kind of "neutral surface" that varies as a function of distance from the Earth-Moon line?

Roy Batty
2002-Apr-11, 09:50 PM
"(what's the word for a 3-dimensional parabola?)"

Parabaloid, i think.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-12, 01:15 PM
If you consider the special case of the direct line between Earth and Moon, the neutral point coincides with the Lagrangian point... L1, I think.

No, not as you've defined your neutral point. Your definition considers only gravity while the computation of L<sub>1</sub> must include a term for centripetal force.

and you have a true (though unstable) equilibrium.

Properly corrected, your model would produce this effect. Lagrangian libration points are unstable, but it is possible to place spacecraft at the libration points formed in the sun-earth system.

But on any other route you take (including the Apollo trajectories), the neutral point (for that trajectory) will actually be farther from the Moon than the one in the first case.

Correct.

Also, all those points are not points of equilibrium, because the gravitational tensors are equal in magnitude but not opposite.

Correct.

So. What I envision is a sort of parabolic surface

Yes, and Roy has provided the correct name for it.

Is this a reasonable way to visualize the neutral point -- as a kind of "neutral surface" that varies as a function of distance from the Earth-Moon line?

Yes, except forget about Lagrange. I shouldn't have brought up him except that sooner or later I have to deal libration points when I explain neutral points, and it's better sooner than later.

The issue has to do with the computability of gravity-related problems. During most of the translunar coast, it is most convenient to compute the trajectory in an earth-centered system, considering the moon and sun as perturbing influences that move relative to the earth. After crossing into the moon's sphere of influence, it becomes more convenient to compute the motion of the spacecraft in a moon-centered system, where the earth and sun are perturbational bodies that move relative to the moon.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-04-12 09:18 ]</font>

Ian R
2002-Apr-14, 08:31 AM
Slime: Thanx for the info AstroMike. Ian R must have purloined one of my threads eleswhere. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



AHA!!



You've been found out, Slime! I got that link from one of Carrot Cruncher's threads at ApolloHoax. Either you're Carrot Top himself or a close associate.