I just noticed this today, from the photos that NASA released on Friday, for the 40 year anniversary of the landings.
The shadows are too long !!!
This indicates the landers are still on the moon surface.
How did the astronauts get back? Or did they?
Could there have been two teams? One public and one secret-a suicide mission, meant to die on the surface of the moon?
EM
Reason?
1. The angle for the light source is quite a bit lower than your sketch.
2. On the shadow side of each object there is a dip in the surface contour. This will increase the length of the shadow greatly.
If I know anything about you... you probably did some math to determine the light angle. Did you consider the Moon's curvature?
Satellite photos used to be 'my thing' ;)
The LM is sitting in a depression area which makes the shadow appear longer.
there were at least 3 NASA missions to the moon ( not counting the several fly-bys)
not all the info was publicly released, and still has not been.
i have over 3,000 moon-mission photos on my pc, hijacked from a database error a while back that let us access the NASA archives on the internet. I was searching for evidence of a structure on the back side of the moon. NASA did not know the origin of the structure, but mission voice recordings talk about it being there. I was unable to find anything in all those photos, but i do have a fairly comprehensive collection covering nearly 1/3 of the lunar surface.
also, several other countries have launched lunar modules. including china, japan, russia and pakistan.
There are in fact, several artifacts still on the surface of the moon.
about the shadow thing......
those photos were taken from the rocket - from which the module separated. This is a completely different angle than the source of the light (sun), which needs to be taken into account before you make an accurate measurement of the size of the object producing the shadow.
The claim by nasa that they accidentally taped over the Apollo tapes, or lost them, or whatever....says it all.
http://www.data4science.net/essays.php?EssayID=848
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUGRngAhBI
I'm certain that man has made his presence known on the moon. The question of whether man himself has gone there, and if so, truly HOW and WHEN..... is, by nasa's own doing, wide open to speculation.
Oops, we lost the tapes. Let's get hollywood to fix it!
Quote"It's surprising to me that NASA didn't have the common sense to save perhaps the most important historical footage of the 20th century," said Rice University historian and author Douglas Brinkley. He noted that NASA saved all sorts of data and artifacts from Apollo 11, and it is "mind-boggling that the tapes just disappeared."
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/post_24.html
I bet these guys know the answers!.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8bptMpkkjc One can skip the banter and go to 4:30 in the clip
An interesting article released today:
http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html
TS
comparing the images from the Apollo archive, with these newly released satellite images, and doing some very basic geometric calculations and approximations can reveal that there are discrepancies
For example, here's just one observation to think about.
Look how large the LEM is relative to the double crater (in the satellite photo) and how small and far it is from the crater in the Apollo image !
Then look how close the LEM sits to the surface and look at the nozzle cone. I guess the image must of been taken at almost a horizontal sun angle (in the satellite image), but if that is the case, almost every feature on the ground would have strong shadows on it.
Whatever sits on the Moon surface at the Apollo 11 landing site, (in the satellite image) is way to different then what we are led to believe.
EM
P.S. Apparently I'm not the only one noticing these things: http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0709/alien-tower2.php
The fact that the Moon missions were tracked by amateur astronomers and by the Russians, who to this day consider it a sore spot to their national pride, seems to rule out the idea that it was faked. Unless they are all lying, which doesn't really seem possible.
look, to show you that it is possible for a man to go to the moon I will personally and artistically paint a face on the moon for you, would that be proof enough? or do I have to hold still the painting for you? so that it isn't missed. I am sure the Zig Zag man would be sufficient but the man of burden will be enough.
I am really getting bored of this current space age, I will build my Level 4 civ Space ship, someday. I have the blue prints right here. I am just waiting for some money and waiting my time.
I know, you think nobody could ever build a level 4 civ spaceship, there is a 50% probability you are wrong.
Time Lords.
Jerry ;)
Asymetric,
I've also heard of people listening to signals coming from the direction of the moon during the Apollo missions (HAM radio folks) but that does not mean much. Look at this link about bouncing signals off the moon, a technique invented by the military in WWII.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EME_(communications)
Also, seeing and tracking visualy something that is going to the moon does not mean there are people on board. Prior to the Apollo missions we had already placed a few things on the surface of the moon. (I think a Surveryor craft is photographed by one of the Apollo missions)
Also, I failed to point out that the two images just released from NASA, (Apollo 11, and Apollo 14) differ from one another. Look at the shadows and how different they are, compare the length, width, relative to the object that makes the shadow etc...
Before these images came out, my theory has been that we went to the moon on later missions, but we faked the first to buy us time. And once you fake one, you get to the moon and realize you have to fake all the others to STAY CONSISTENT. :)
I'm just raising questions here, not advocating real hard, if we went or didn't go to the Moon. Just observations, that's all.
EM
Anyone who doesn't believe that this Humongous Saturn V rocket never went to the moon has something wrong with them.
and then there was Skylab, I watched it fall back to Earth that day then there is the International space station.
these people believe that man could never survive the trip due to radiation well tell that to the Russian cosmonaut living in space in a space station.
I can not believe so many people are that messed up, most are totally confused.
Cheeri'O
Jerry ;)
QuoteI can not believe so many people are that messed up, most are totally confused.
LOL.....you are absolutely right.
So confused that we too would probably tape over stacks and stacks of ORIGINAL apollo moon footage like nasa says it did....if given the opportunity.
LOL.....
All those people that don't believe can simply study the International Space Station's records and how much radiation exposure the cosmonaut would endure during his/her mission in orbit.
Data collected by NASA and a Russian-Austrian collaboration show that astronauts on the ISS are subjected to about 1 millisievert of radiation per day, about the same as someone would get from natural sources on Earth in a whole year. Spending three months in these conditions translates into about one-tenth the long-term cancer risk incurred by regular smokers.
Despite the years of high-quality research reported in rems and millirems (mrem, 10-3 rem), the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements wants us to give up the rad in favor of the gray (Gy), a unit 100 times larger. Similarly, the rem is to be replaced by the sievert (Sv), again so that 100 rem = 1 Sv. Unfortunately, the rad and rem were already a little large to work with (why the table below is expressed in millirems) and converting to grays and sieverts makes the problem worse. Happily, many workers continue to use the rad and rem, and so shall we. In fact, I will try to express all radiation doses in a single unit, the millirem.
Used to destroy the bone marrow in preparation for a marrow transplant (given over several days) 1,000,000
Approximate lethal dose ("LD50") if no treatment and given to the entire body in a short period 450,000
Causes radiation sickness (when absorbed in a short period) >100,000
Increase in lifetime dose to most heavily exposed people living near Chernobyl 43,000
Average annual dose (excluding natural background) for medical X-ray technicians 320
Maximum permissible annual dose (excluding natural background and medical exposure) to general public 170
Natural background, Boston, MA, USA (per year)(excluding radon) 102
Natural background, Denver, CO, USA (per year)(excluding radon) 180
Additional annual dose if you live in a brick rather than a wood house 7
Annual dose in some houses in Ramsar, Iran >13,000
Average dose to person living within 10 miles of Three-Mile Island (TMI) caused by the accident of 28 March 1979 8
Most heavily exposed person (a fisherman) near TMI <100
Approximate dose received by a person spending 1 year at the fence surrounding a nuclear power station 0.1â€"0.6
Average dose to each person in the U. S. population from nuclear power plants (per year) 0.002
Received by the bone marrow during a set of dental x rays* 9.4
Received by the colon during a barium enema 1,500
Typical chest x ray 2
Received by breast during mammogram ~300
Dose from a single full-body computed tomography (CT) scan 4,500
When delivered in a single dose, increases the risk of developing cancer by 1% 10,000
Average airline passenger (10 flights/year) 3
Flight crew and cabin attendants (per year) 160
Hourly dose to skin holding piece of the original "Fiesta Ware" (a brand of pottery) 200â€"300
Annual dose to each person in the U. S. population from fallout (former weapons testing plus Chernobyl) 0.06
The ISS which orbits BENEATH the Van Allen radiation belt, proves little. Perhaps after further study, you will point to the 'rooster tails' kicked up by the lunar rover, or other simple demonstration which would have been practically impossible to fake in the late sixties, early seventies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRSpntQ-VtY
Clearly, the fine dust on the lunar surface, if replicated in a studio on earth, would kick up a dust cloud large enough to put the fakers in a fog for quite awhile. And nobody of sound mind is willing to postulate a vacuum chamber the size of an airliner hanger.
So, there is more than ample proof that man went to the moon.
But alas, when and how exactly, is open to speculation....
It's too bad nasa taped over the original landing tapes by accident.
What NASA has to say
Question:
(Submitted February 28, 1997)
I wonder if you could tell me exactly what the VAN ALLEN BELT is and how much radiation does it contain, ie how many rems of radiation are there out there? Plus, what protection would organic life need to be protected from this radiation?
Answer:
David Stern, a researcher in another lab here at Goddard, has graciously supplied an answer to your question, given below:
"The radiation belts are regions of high-energy particles, mainly protons and electrons, held captive by the magnetic influence of the Earth. They have two main sources. A small but very intense "inner belt" (some call it "The Van Allen Belt" because it was discovered in 1958 by James Van Allen of the University of Iowa) is trapped within 4000 miles or or so of the Earth's surface. It consists mainly a high-energy protons (10-50 MeV) and is a by-product of the cosmic radiation, a thin drizzle of very fast protons and nuclei which apparently fill all our galaxy.
" In addition there exist electrons and protons (and also oxygen particles from the upper atmosphere) given moderate energies (say 1-100 keV; 1 MeV = 1000 keV) by processes inside the domain of the Earth's magnetic field. Some of these electrons produce the polar aurora ("northern lights") when they hit the upper atmosphere, but many get trapped, and among those, protons and positive particles have most of the energy .
"I looked up a typical satellite passing the radiation belts (elliptic orbit, 200 miles to 20000 miles) and the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt. But there is no danger. The way the particles move in the magnetic field prevents them from hitting the atmosphere, and even if they are scattered so their orbit does intersect the ground, the atmosphere absorbs them long before they get very far. Even the space station would be safe, because the orbits usually stop above it--any particles dipping deeper down are lost much faster than they can be replenished.
"If all this sounds too technical but you still want to find out-- what ions and magnetic fields and cosmic rays are, etc.--you will find a long detailed exposition (both without math) on the World Wide Web at: http://www.phy6.org/Education/Intro.html
Good luck!
David Stern
Note:
Another point of particular interest to us in high-energy astrophysics is the South Atlantic Anomaly. This is a region of very high particle flux about 250 km above the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Brazil and is a result of the fact that the Earth's rotational and magnetic axes are not aligned (see http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/radbelts.html). The particle flux is so high in this region that often the detectors on our satellites must be shut off (or at least placed in a "safe" mode) to protect them from the radiation.
Andy Ptak
for Ask an Astrophysicist
you can read the article here:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970228a.html
radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt.
doesn't seem to be very lethal at all, if fact a CT scan is more deadly than the Van Allen Belt which turns out to be 8.680 Rem's of radiation a day or 0.0024 Rem's per second if you remain in the belt that is.
this is equivalent to 4 chest X-Rays per day while in the inner Van Allen Belt.
Jerry ;)
I think I can faithfully say to my self that the astronauts would not of had any difficulty with radiation sickness.
so, now, We ought to study how much fuel to weight ratio the Saturn V rocket had and then plot for the moon using the remain fuel and inertia, I might do the numbers later so we can verify the math. but I have a hunch all the numbers are going to match up.
Jerry ;)
Like I stated before, if anything proves they went to the moon, it's the lunar rover rooster tails....all that fine dust would have kicked up quite a cloud which would have taken a while to settle on an earth studio....that is unless they had a super sized vacuum chamber back then....which is virtually impossible.
NASA'S revelation that they lost or taped over the original apollo tapes says that they either want the controversy to continue, possibly to give conspiracy buffs something to keep them harmlessly distracted, or that they really are hiding something profound.
Knowing NASA, it's probably both.
Quote from: TechStuf on July 31, 2009, 06:26:35 PM
Like I stated before, if anything proves they went to the moon, it's the lunar rover rooster tails....all that fine dust would have kicked up quite a cloud which would have taken a while to settle on an earth studio....that is unless they had a super sized vacuum chamber back then....which is virtually impossible.
NASA'S revelation that they lost or taped over the original apollo tapes says that they either want the controversy to continue, possibly to give conspiracy buffs something to keep them harmlessly distracted, or that they really are hiding something profound.
Knowing NASA, it's probably both.
Hi Tech.
I absolutely agree with you.
the rooster tails would always work out to be about six times further than on Earth given the 1/6 gravitational difference. also the hammer and the feather experiment as well and the clumsiness of the Astronauts walking around on the surface says a lot.
I am pretty positive that they indeed stepped foot on the moon. I don't see any negative data that would of said otherwise.
however, I do think it would be more difficult going through the BIBLE belt than anything else because this is where most of the conspiracies started from.
Jerry ;)
Here is proof that it was more difficult for astronauts to pass through the BIBLE belt rather than the Van Allen Belt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9qmSbtTCFo
I had to.
Jerry ;)
Treat groups of any 'stripe' like mushrooms long enough and 'one' is bound to get all manner of feedback....whether it be based in fact or not.
Once again, it all comes home to roost with the actions of thoroughly corrupted powers that be...
I'll take the bible belt over a criminal cabal that specializes in activities below the belt any day of the 'week'.
God bless ya Jerry,
Mitch
P.S. I didn't have to....I wanted to.
sm0ky2 should do a little basic research on just how many manned lunar landing there were prior to commenting on them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkB3raSbyo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkB3raSbyo)
What happened to the "old" Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy. ::)