Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:28 am  

Good thread! Helped pass a couple of hours at work. I never knew there were so many loons about. Or did I?

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:00 am  

Can you hear a ROCKET MOTOR delivering TENS OF THOUSANDS of pounds of thrust at upwards of 160 decibels ANYWHERE in this clip Remember, you MUST hear it roaring feet below Armstrong because it is attached to the ship and as ANYONE with half a brain knows - sound travels through more than just air. Sure, if it were completely detached from the ship you wouldn't hear it. But it wouldn't provide much use to the pilots. CRASH!

Can you hear a ROCKET MOTOR delivering TENS OF THOUSANDS of pounds of thrust at upwards of 160 decibels ANYWHERE in this clip Remember, you MUST hear it roaring feet below Armstrong because it is attached to the ship and as ANYONE with half a brain knows - sound travels through more than just air. Sure, if it were completely detached from the ship you wouldn't hear it. But it wouldn't provide much use to the pilots. CRASH!

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:21 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Sky say though:
The point is, you are getting the Sky satellite feed, whether legally or not. If it was all coming through some analogue ground broadcats you would be wasting your money needlessly, even if it isn't very much.

My next door neighbour has one, pays something like £80 and some dodgy feller turns up and fits it. It needs to be done every year, something to do with passwords from what I could make out, but she does have every channel available. All a bit iffy.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:22 am  

Mugwump wrote: Can you hear a ROCKET MOTOR delivering TENS OF THOUSANDS of pounds of thrust at upwards of 160 decibels ANYWHERE in this clip Remember, you MUST hear it roaring feet below Armstrong because it is attached to the ship and as ANYONE with half a brain knows - sound travels through more than just air. Sure, if it were completely detached from the ship you wouldn't hear it. But it wouldn't provide much use to the pilots. CRASH!

Mugwump wrote: Can you hear a ROCKET MOTOR delivering TENS OF THOUSANDS of pounds of thrust at upwards of 160 decibels ANYWHERE in this clip Remember, you MUST hear it roaring feet below Armstrong because it is attached to the ship and as ANYONE with half a brain knows - sound travels through more than just air. Sure, if it were completely detached from the ship you wouldn't hear it. But it wouldn't provide much use to the pilots. CRASH!

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:36 am  

I thought you were concentrating purely on SCIENCE?

Was this a lie? Or do you know something about light or sound that will shortly revolutionize the way we think about both?

Question: if the sun is 150 million km distant (and - we aren't orbiting a BLACK HOLE) what does the Inverse Square Law say FOR CERTAIN about levels of light intensity measured at three unobstructed locations based several miles apart?

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:51 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Let's say the correct exposure for the foreground is, say, f/8. If you had to guess the f/stop for the background what would it be?

What is this TELLING YOU about the source of light given the above?

And no - being on the moon has nothing to do with it. We are talking about a fundamental property of the universe which applies equally well to all travelling waves (such as sound). If anything it makes the question simpler.

Replying to this despite your blatant trolling, and despite the fact that it is impossible to do other than guess, unless you stood at the scene on the Moon with a light meter, because this particular point might be interesting. If you confirm what your point actually is, and what you mean by "the background" - the distant Moon surface? The LEM?

And with reference to that, can we please be informed of whatever it may be that moon hoaxers think is the Killer Point which, you presumably imply, arises from this?

I await with bated breath. Your answer might shatter decades of being fooled!

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:09 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Very good! You're trolling, I'm not playing. Stan will swallow it so I'll let you play with each other.

Hahahaha. You've been destroyed by Myself an Satellite TV. And by Mugwump on the Moon landing and your defensive hyperbole is the accusation that we're trolls. Poor Borg has nothing left not even Your faith can rescue your downfall as its been smashed to death. You've become a liability Told you that your foundations are built on a Stanley Kubrick filmset..And them foundations have crumbled. hahaha

Calling people trolls in a last resort scramble, only proves you've lost the plot. Bit of advice next time choose a faith that has foundations..

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:11 am  

Mugwump wrote:

I thought you were concentrating purely on SCIENCE?

Ah, so finally you get it. Good.

Mugwump wrote:

Question: if the sun is 150 million km distant (and - we aren't orbiting a BLACK HOLE) what does the Inverse Square Law say FOR CERTAIN about levels of light intensity measured at three unobstructed locations based several miles apart?

Not much. The law itself is a given, but the actual lighting conditions on a curved and rotating moon will vary depending on the angle of incoming light, as the Sun rises in the sky, and the reflectivity of the particular type of terrain at each location scattering the incoming light around the scene.

Look at a full Moon through your binoculars. Or even just with your eyes. These factors cause us to be able to see a huge range of shapes shades and patterns even in "dead overhead" lighting conditions.

Unless NASA is faking the Moon, I suppose, and it is really another "holograph".

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:15 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Replying to this despite your blatant trolling, and despite the fact that it is impossible to do other than guess, unless you stood at the scene on the Moon with a light meter, because this particular point might be interesting. If you confirm what your point actually is, and what you mean by "the background" - the distant Moon surface? The LEM?

And with reference to that, can we please be informed of whatever it may be that moon hoaxers think is the Killer Point which, you presumably imply, arises from this?

I await with bated breath. Your answer might shatter decades of being fooled!

I am trying to get YOU to understand. I can't make this point any simpler without spelling it our for you.

So engage that lump of lard sitting between your lug holes and think.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:16 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Ah, so finally you get it. Good.

Not much. The law itself is a given, but the actual lighting conditions on a curved and rotating moon will vary depending on the angle of incoming light, as the Sun rises in the sky, and the reflectivity of the particular type of terrain at each location scattering the incoming light around the scene.

Look at a full Moon through your binoculars. Or even just with your eyes. These factors cause us to be able to see a huge range of shapes shades and patterns even in "dead overhead" lighting conditions.

You are not THINKING.