Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:17 pm  

Hilarious. You do realise that all the Astra satellites used by Sky point their transmission to a particular point of the earth, you know, the point at which your dish is aligned to? The sky dishes dont actually align to the satelites themselves. As for satellites malfunctioning, yes it happens but its extremely rare. Most just run out of fuel and all that happens is another of the Astra satellites take over.

Is frightening, some of the stories you believe

Regards

King James

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:00 pm  

Mugwump wrote: ... And yet we are supposed to have FAITH in NASA? If you like, but I'm not a "faith" person, I'll stick with the science and facts. Mugwump wrote: Regarding the supposed cooling systems in both the suits and the Lunar Excursion Module - it really isn't difficult to determine that even the notion is patently LUDICROUS. Turn your oven to 180 degrees centigrade and leave it for a few minutes to warm up. Now open the door and stick your hand in. In that brief moment you can tolerate the heat you are getting just a taste of what both cooling systems had to overcome for hours - even days. What nonsense. When you put your hand inside the hot oven you feel the hot GAS. There IS no gas on the Moon. Back to the drawing board. Plus, of course I can put my hand in the oven, and keep it there. I can even handle safely and easily the extremely hot shelveas and any baking trays - as long as I put on my million dollar spacesuit. Or - a £3 oven glove from Asda will enable me to perform just such miracles. So a £3 oven glove can protect us from much higher temperatures. Just think how much more proetction a designer million dollar spacesuit could do Mugwump wrote: And as for the LEM - think of 190 degrees beating down on every square inch of its paper-thin skin. And if we are to believe Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin it was so COLD inside the LEM they were "constantly shivering". Laughable! Why would they say that if not true? Wouldn't it be a very odd thing to script? But, here's a nice summary The ascent stage was covered in aluminum that was painted, etched, or anodized to give each panel precise absorptive properties. The ascent engine fuel likes to be kept at about room temperature, so the bulbous tank enclosures had a reasonable fraction of black panels. The electronics bay was in the back and subjected to the full brunt of the rising sun. Its panels are therefore quite brightly colored to reflect away most of that. The crew cabin was on the shady side and so simply didn't get much sun. Mugwump wrote: Think of Neil Armstrong's quiet, assured and professional tone as he hunts for a safe place to land the LEM. Now think of the ROCKET MOTOR which is barely more than a COUPLE OF METRES below his feet delivering five-figures of thrust. Boy! NASA must really have spent big on high-technology sound-proofing because Armstrong never raised his voice once. Er, does the fact that jet thrusters are (for obvious reasons) silent in a vacuum, assist you? Add to that the facts that Armstrong's mike was inside his spacesuit and thus well-insulated from any noise from outside the spacesuit, and I really don't see any issue here. Mugwump wrote: And whilst we are at it - the hypergolic fuel NASA claims was used burns up at around 4,000/5,000C. Are we to supposed to believe the moon's surface is so heat-resistant that instead of turning to LAVA immediately below the LEM (bear in mind that many earth rocks are reduced to this state at 1,000C) it retarded the heat as well as any heat-shield? The LEm didn't descend vertically like Thunderbirds, it came along a path, and only a very brief final part of the descent was at practically zer ground speed. At this point the LEM was already descending very slowly and so only gentle thrusts would be needed to slow the descnt in the last seconds for a gentle klanding. Before the actual touchdown no part of the surface would be heated as the fuel comes out basically as gas and - that pesky vacuum again - does not behave like on Earth, but extremely rapidly expands in the vacuum of space. So the point is entirely bogus as it wasn't sitting there like some welder's torch incinerating the Moon. Mugwump wrote: As for the photographs - even though there's plenty of evidence of multiple shadows (remember, the astronauts brought no separate light sources according to the manufacturers of the camera - Hasselblad) - as a Canon-accredited photographer who has worked extensively with fast lenses and multiple flash packs I tend to concentrate purely on LIGHT. You see - anyone who understands the full significance of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW, f-stops and dynamic range must instantly realise there's something very WRONG with many of the photographs. There is absolutley nothing "wrong" with any of the photographs. These objections have been debunked to death and it is asinine to persist with them. Mugwump wrote: As for those photographs in which the "sun" backlights the scene and yet the subject is clearly visible (rather than turning to a silhouette) despite the fact that the camera is stopped down to such an extent that everything in the scene is PIN SHARP and yet the photographer is not using a tripod - LAUGHABLE. Without reference to a specific image there is no point in going into detail, but you seem to make the same basic mistake that most moon hoax nuts do, expecting "silhouettes. In fact, there is plenty of scattered light on the Moon, the sunlight hits the regolith, and is scattered in all directions at it is reflected. Why (and you may find this hard to believe, but trust me) not only can that reflected light illuminate astronauts on the surface, it can also illuminate your own back yard, despite it being 250,000 miles away. Mugwump wrote: If you have a camera, remote trigger and a flash do yourself a favour and try to recreate that shot in low light whilst handholding at f/22 or above using everyday items. A flash is a good analogue for the sun providing you don't place it close. When you have finished let me know how you got on. The light on the Moon is anything but "low". When the sun comes up, it is 100% neat sun, no atmosphere to scatter. How could it be "low light"? You're not stupid, so why say that? The light is so high, it seems very bright from fscking Earth. What is your definition of "low light"???? Anyway, I wouldn't waste my time as I can see the real images, and as I'm not planning to go to the moon any time soon, and as I don't own a 70mm 500EL Hasselblad If you are interested, see here: http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

Mugwump wrote: ... And yet we are supposed to have FAITH in NASA? If you like, but I'm not a "faith" person, I'll stick with the science and facts. Mugwump wrote: Regarding the supposed cooling systems in both the suits and the Lunar Excursion Module - it really isn't difficult to determine that even the notion is patently LUDICROUS. Turn your oven to 180 degrees centigrade and leave it for a few minutes to warm up. Now open the door and stick your hand in. In that brief moment you can tolerate the heat you are getting just a taste of what both cooling systems had to overcome for hours - even days. What nonsense. When you put your hand inside the hot oven you feel the hot GAS. There IS no gas on the Moon. Back to the drawing board. Plus, of course I can put my hand in the oven, and keep it there. I can even handle safely and easily the extremely hot shelveas and any baking trays - as long as I put on my million dollar spacesuit. Or - a £3 oven glove from Asda will enable me to perform just such miracles. So a £3 oven glove can protect us from much higher temperatures. Just think how much more proetction a designer million dollar spacesuit could do Mugwump wrote: And as for the LEM - think of 190 degrees beating down on every square inch of its paper-thin skin. And if we are to believe Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin it was so COLD inside the LEM they were "constantly shivering". Laughable! Why would they say that if not true? Wouldn't it be a very odd thing to script? But, here's a nice summary The ascent stage was covered in aluminum that was painted, etched, or anodized to give each panel precise absorptive properties. The ascent engine fuel likes to be kept at about room temperature, so the bulbous tank enclosures had a reasonable fraction of black panels. The electronics bay was in the back and subjected to the full brunt of the rising sun. Its panels are therefore quite brightly colored to reflect away most of that. The crew cabin was on the shady side and so simply didn't get much sun. Mugwump wrote: Think of Neil Armstrong's quiet, assured and professional tone as he hunts for a safe place to land the LEM. Now think of the ROCKET MOTOR which is barely more than a COUPLE OF METRES below his feet delivering five-figures of thrust. Boy! NASA must really have spent big on high-technology sound-proofing because Armstrong never raised his voice once. Er, does the fact that jet thrusters are (for obvious reasons) silent in a vacuum, assist you? Add to that the facts that Armstrong's mike was inside his spacesuit and thus well-insulated from any noise from outside the spacesuit, and I really don't see any issue here. Mugwump wrote: And whilst we are at it - the hypergolic fuel NASA claims was used burns up at around 4,000/5,000C. Are we to supposed to believe the moon's surface is so heat-resistant that instead of turning to LAVA immediately below the LEM (bear in mind that many earth rocks are reduced to this state at 1,000C) it retarded the heat as well as any heat-shield? The LEm didn't descend vertically like Thunderbirds, it came along a path, and only a very brief final part of the descent was at practically zer ground speed. At this point the LEM was already descending very slowly and so only gentle thrusts would be needed to slow the descnt in the last seconds for a gentle klanding. Before the actual touchdown no part of the surface would be heated as the fuel comes out basically as gas and - that pesky vacuum again - does not behave like on Earth, but extremely rapidly expands in the vacuum of space. So the point is entirely bogus as it wasn't sitting there like some welder's torch incinerating the Moon. Mugwump wrote: As for the photographs - even though there's plenty of evidence of multiple shadows (remember, the astronauts brought no separate light sources according to the manufacturers of the camera - Hasselblad) - as a Canon-accredited photographer who has worked extensively with fast lenses and multiple flash packs I tend to concentrate purely on LIGHT. You see - anyone who understands the full significance of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW, f-stops and dynamic range must instantly realise there's something very WRONG with many of the photographs. There is absolutley nothing "wrong" with any of the photographs. These objections have been debunked to death and it is asinine to persist with them. Mugwump wrote: As for those photographs in which the "sun" backlights the scene and yet the subject is clearly visible (rather than turning to a silhouette) despite the fact that the camera is stopped down to such an extent that everything in the scene is PIN SHARP and yet the photographer is not using a tripod - LAUGHABLE. Without reference to a specific image there is no point in going into detail, but you seem to make the same basic mistake that most moon hoax nuts do, expecting "silhouettes. In fact, there is plenty of scattered light on the Moon, the sunlight hits the regolith, and is scattered in all directions at it is reflected. Why (and you may find this hard to believe, but trust me) not only can that reflected light illuminate astronauts on the surface, it can also illuminate your own back yard, despite it being 250,000 miles away. Mugwump wrote: If you have a camera, remote trigger and a flash do yourself a favour and try to recreate that shot in low light whilst handholding at f/22 or above using everyday items. A flash is a good analogue for the sun providing you don't place it close. When you have finished let me know how you got on. The light on the Moon is anything but "low". When the sun comes up, it is 100% neat sun, no atmosphere to scatter. How could it be "low light"? You're not stupid, so why say that? The light is so high, it seems very bright from fscking Earth. What is your definition of "low light"???? Anyway, I wouldn't waste my time as I can see the real images, and as I'm not planning to go to the moon any time soon, and as I don't own a 70mm 500EL Hasselblad If you are interested, see here: http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:13 pm  

tigerman1231 wrote:

You can receive paid sky channels by paying next to nothing not exactly free but minimum cost.
You need a satellite dish and a broadband internet connection and a 'SKY' V8 android box plus a '12 months gift' which costs about £10.
Bingo 'FREE' sky tv including all PPV at a cost of around £10 per year

Sky say though:

In many cases these boxes are modified to view Sky channels illegally and we're aware of this issue.

Unfortunately I can't provide any further information on this due to ongoing investigations.

We are taking this matter seriously and I can assure you that we're working to put a stop to this.

Thanks for taking the time to express your concern on this issue.

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.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:18 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: If you like, but I'm not a "faith" person, I'll stick with the science and facts. Nope. Faith is PRECISELY the word I'm looking for. [/quote] What nonsense. When you put your hand inside the hot oven you feel the hot GAS. There IS no gas on the Moon. Back to the drawing board. WTF are you talking about? I thought you mentioned the word "science" Plus, of course I can put my hand in the oven, and keep it there. I can even handle safely and easily the extremely hot shelveas and any baking trays - as long as I put on my million dollar spacesuit. Or - a £3 oven glove from Asda will enable me to perform just such miracles. So a £3 oven glove can protect us from much higher temperatures. Just think how much more proetction a designer million dollar spacesuit could do Don't you mean - "magic spacesuit"? Er, does the fact that jet thrusters are (for obvious reasons) silent in a vacuum, assist you? Add to that the facts that Armstrong's mike was inside his spacesuit and thus well-insulated from any noise from outside the spacesuit, and I really don't see any issue here. You dumb oik. It doesn't matter whether every last molecule of air was pumped out of space - Sound waves are travelling vibrations of particles in media such as air, water or METAL. Maybe you should take science again at school. The LEm didn't descend vertically like Thunderbirds, it came along a path, and only a very brief final part of the descent was at practically zer ground speed. At this point the LEM was already descending very slowly and so only gentle thrusts would be needed to slow the descnt in the last seconds for a gentle klanding. Before the actual touchdown no part of the surface would be heated as the fuel comes out basically as gas and - that pesky vacuum again - does not behave like on Earth, but extremely rapidly expands in the vacuum of space. So the point is entirely bogus as it wasn't sitting there like some welder's torch incinerating the Moon. Ah, I get it. A magic thruster. There is absolutley nothing "wrong" with any of the photographs. These objections have been debunked to death and it is asinine to persist with them. Without reference to a specific image there is no point in going into detail, but you seem to make the same basic mistake that most moon hoax nuts do, expecting "silhouettes. In fact, there is plenty of scattered light on the Moon, the sunlight hits the regolith, and is scattered in all directions at it is reflected. Why (and you may find this hard to believe, but trust me) not only can that reflected light illuminate astronauts on the surface, it can also illuminate your own back yard, despite it being 250,000 miles away. You mean, the regolith which reflects approximately 8% of sunlight - equivalent to bitumen? Or is it "magic regolith"? You don't understand the significance of the Inverse Square Law and the sun's HUGE DISTANCE from the subject, do you? The light on the Moon is anything but "low". When the sun come sup, it si 100% sun, no atmosphere to scatter. How could it be "low light? You're not stupid, so why say that? The light is so high, it seems very bright from fscking Earth. What is your definition of "low light"???? I defined the sun as a point source of light. Given that there are no other light sources (and as you say - no atmospheric scatter) it's perfectly acceptable to classify ALL the shots as low light from a flash photography perspective because as I've said - a flash functions equally well as a point source of light providing it is not close. Anyway, I wouldn't waste my time as I can see the real images, and as I'm not planning to go to the moon any time soon, and as I don't own a 70mm 500EL Hasselblad You don't need a Hasselblad you dumbass. The laws of photography work equally well for all cameras. If you are interested, see here: http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html Jesus. You are beyond help.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: If you like, but I'm not a "faith" person, I'll stick with the science and facts. Nope. Faith is PRECISELY the word I'm looking for. [/quote] What nonsense. When you put your hand inside the hot oven you feel the hot GAS. There IS no gas on the Moon. Back to the drawing board. WTF are you talking about? I thought you mentioned the word "science" Plus, of course I can put my hand in the oven, and keep it there. I can even handle safely and easily the extremely hot shelveas and any baking trays - as long as I put on my million dollar spacesuit. Or - a £3 oven glove from Asda will enable me to perform just such miracles. So a £3 oven glove can protect us from much higher temperatures. Just think how much more proetction a designer million dollar spacesuit could do Don't you mean - "magic spacesuit"? Er, does the fact that jet thrusters are (for obvious reasons) silent in a vacuum, assist you? Add to that the facts that Armstrong's mike was inside his spacesuit and thus well-insulated from any noise from outside the spacesuit, and I really don't see any issue here. You dumb oik. It doesn't matter whether every last molecule of air was pumped out of space - Sound waves are travelling vibrations of particles in media such as air, water or METAL. Maybe you should take science again at school. The LEm didn't descend vertically like Thunderbirds, it came along a path, and only a very brief final part of the descent was at practically zer ground speed. At this point the LEM was already descending very slowly and so only gentle thrusts would be needed to slow the descnt in the last seconds for a gentle klanding. Before the actual touchdown no part of the surface would be heated as the fuel comes out basically as gas and - that pesky vacuum again - does not behave like on Earth, but extremely rapidly expands in the vacuum of space. So the point is entirely bogus as it wasn't sitting there like some welder's torch incinerating the Moon. Ah, I get it. A magic thruster. There is absolutley nothing "wrong" with any of the photographs. These objections have been debunked to death and it is asinine to persist with them. Without reference to a specific image there is no point in going into detail, but you seem to make the same basic mistake that most moon hoax nuts do, expecting "silhouettes. In fact, there is plenty of scattered light on the Moon, the sunlight hits the regolith, and is scattered in all directions at it is reflected. Why (and you may find this hard to believe, but trust me) not only can that reflected light illuminate astronauts on the surface, it can also illuminate your own back yard, despite it being 250,000 miles away. You mean, the regolith which reflects approximately 8% of sunlight - equivalent to bitumen? Or is it "magic regolith"? You don't understand the significance of the Inverse Square Law and the sun's HUGE DISTANCE from the subject, do you? The light on the Moon is anything but "low". When the sun come sup, it si 100% sun, no atmosphere to scatter. How could it be "low light? You're not stupid, so why say that? The light is so high, it seems very bright from fscking Earth. What is your definition of "low light"???? I defined the sun as a point source of light. Given that there are no other light sources (and as you say - no atmospheric scatter) it's perfectly acceptable to classify ALL the shots as low light from a flash photography perspective because as I've said - a flash functions equally well as a point source of light providing it is not close. Anyway, I wouldn't waste my time as I can see the real images, and as I'm not planning to go to the moon any time soon, and as I don't own a 70mm 500EL Hasselblad You don't need a Hasselblad you dumbass. The laws of photography work equally well for all cameras. If you are interested, see here: http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html Jesus. You are beyond help.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:30 pm  

Hypergolic fuelled rocket motor



Yep, that's some heat-resistant regolith. Not even a scratch.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:40 pm  

Must have fitted the motor with a silencer, too.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:59 pm  

Backlighting (in far better light conditions than on the moon).



Compare with countless backlit NASA images. Notice anything?



Any experienced flash photographer knows the difference between NATURAL light and THEATRICAL light. And as I said - the LAWS of photography work equally well on the moon and regardless of camera technology.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:55 pm  

Suit "reflectivity"

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:04 pm  

Answers on a postcard - what does the Inverse Square Law say about this lighting?

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:04 pm  

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