Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 230

Thread: Conjunctions

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,378
    Solon, your conspiracy theory compares poorly to that of the Flat Earthers. It is no more physically plausible, the coverup would need to be of similar scale, and they actually have some conceivable motivation for a coverup, mainly religious beliefs. They claim a coverup with great implications for our origin. In comparison, your massive coverup is of a scientific curiosity with no religious or everyday relevance. It would be as if when Francois Arago observed a dim spot in the shadow of a disc in 1818, all scientists got together and conspired to hide the wave nature of light and keep the entire world thinking it was purely corpuscular.

    Ultraviolet light was discovered in 1801 (211 years ago), and one of its distinguishing characteristics was its invisibility to the eye. Vacuum UV (<200 nm, and quickly absorbed by air) was discovered in 1893. Rontgen discovered x-rays in 1895. Your conspiracy had to already exist, working to prevent the uninitiated from discovering that x-rays and UV illuminated objects as though they were lit with sunlight and could easily be converted to visible light without a great deal of scattering. The conspirators didn't seem to mind people knowing about materials fluorescing under UV or x-ray radiation, however.

    These mysterious effects that so universally convert UV and x-ray radiation into visible black-body radiation must not act within the visible range, or the conspiracy must be centuries if not millennia older, consisting of more or less everybody but you. This degree of cooperation seems rather unlikely.

    All spectroscopic observations of stars and sunlight must be fake, since by your claim it is not black body radiation with emission and absorption lines but rather mysteriously converted UV and x-ray radiation. Spectral absorption lines were discovered in sunlight in 1802, 210 years ago. Your claims require that Wollaston discovered absorption lines through some other means and then not only realized what they were, but kept quiet about those details and simply faked observations of such lines in the solar spectrum. Why hide the lack of dark lines in the solar spectrum in 1802?

    Essentially every dollar ever spent on UV and x-ray astronomy and stellar spectroscopy must have gone to producing fraudulent data to support the conspiracy. You require that entire subsets of astronomy to be completely fake, along with a vast portion of space astronomy and spacecraft engineering.

    Solon, I simply have no idea how you can maintain the notion that your ideas are even vaguely plausible.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,406
    Solon, here's a post from the [Astronauts] cannot find stars thread regarding star visibility (Apollo 13 in this case):

    Quote Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
    They were able to do star sightings before the explosion, of course, but what I didn't know was that they were also able to do so later on:

    05 20 45 04 CMP Okay, Joe. I don't have a star in the sextant. I'm going to hunt for it in a minute.
    05 20 48 09 CC Roger that, Jack.
    05 20 49 23 CMP Okay, Joe. Can you give me any stars that I might try here?
    05 20 49 28 CC That's affirmative. Vega and Altair should be good. Vega is 36, Altair is 40.
    05 20 49 36 CMP Okay. We'll give that a try.
    05 20 49 38 CC Okay. And you might look for them in the telescope if they're not in the sextant right off. They should be close to the crosshairs.
    05 20 49 45 CMP Okay. I got all that material that's venting from the bottom of the command module.
    05 20 49 53 CC Roger that.
    ...
    05 20 52 39 CMP Okay, Houston. There's a star angle difference with stars 36 and 40.
    05 20 52 46 CC How about that, baby.
    ...
    05 20 54 18 CMP Okay, Houston. The sextant star check passes.
    05 20 54 25 CC Say again, Jack.
    05 20 54 28 CMP I did a star check, and it passes.
    That was from outside Earth's ionosphere which is where you asserted stars cannot be seen -- after which you later said to forget that and focus on ISS images -- which is within the ionosphere where you think stars can be seen -- but then, why focus on ISS images?

    I get so confused as to what you really think. Would you please clearly spell it out, including any claimed conspiracy theory. You obviously have some concrete idea of something amiss or this thread would have wrapped up many posts ago. If you can't or won't address questions or accept the extensive evidence given, at least be definitive about your claims, not just stating nagging gut-level Columbo-like feelings. Even though you don't seem to think so, most posters here have been excruciatingly patient with you.
    "There are powers in this universe beyond anything you know. There is much you have to learn. Go to your homes. Go and give thought to the mysteries of the universe. I will leave you now, in peace." --Galaxy Being

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144
    Then get to work showing if any of them has anything to do with your model.

    If your next post does not contain some evidence of your idea, you will be infracted.
    Sorry everyone else, this looks like todays priority.

    Lets stars with the Moon. What color is the Moon seen from orbit?

    Here is an image from the shuttle showing the ISS and the Moon. So you can take an image
    of the Moon from space, you say, its obvious!

    Let's take a look at the bigger image. Enlarge the Moon and tell me what you think. I believe
    my monitor is set up correctly, but I'd like more opinions. I say it is a light brown.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_ISS_Moon.jpg
    It's one helluva pic though. Must be proof you can see the Moon in space. And which direction
    is the Sun from?
    However, there is another image that puts things in a different light.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...cking_iss1.jpg
    Composition. A good photographer know all about composition.
    Oh look, the Moon and Venus! Obviously they can be imaged in space!

    And in the larger image, stars too. I don't think they are blowouts.
    http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...023e047286.jpg
    But a couple of frames further along:

    Composition. I've been in the film/video business with all the best gear and fastest
    computers. We didn't have NASAs resources, but we could fool most of the people most
    of the time.
    And that is why I will not consider those Saturday Morning Science star images as
    anything other than composition. They are out of context. It is up to someone to show
    me that they were NOT taken looking through the ionosphere.
    The Moon taken from an orbiter looks brown:

    There are a few shots from the surface showing this color, many others with different
    colors, sometimes quite different from one frame to the next, so I put that down to
    Earthshine, but colors are a difficult thing.
    But here it is looking silverish again.


    Anyway, better look at some science.
    I am trying to show that much of the light we see from the Moon is the result of X-ray energy
    plane waves, or quasi plane waves being lensed, wavelength shifted, and turned into transverse
    waves, so that we can actually see them with our eyes, or cameras, or simple telescopes. So we
    need x-ray plane waves. Here are the X-rays from the Moon.

    These are from fluorescence, and they are produced by Solar X-rays of higher energy colliding
    with electrons.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_fluorescence
    The majority of these will be from a layer of electrons, a carpet, just a few cm deep on the lunar
    surface. Electron density of the Lunar ionosphere you can look up yourselves.
    The x-rays from the moon are in effect a point source array, so we have wave fronts radiating out,
    and reaching Earths ionosphere. These wave fronts need to produce a shifted and focused light
    by the time they reach the surface, so we can see them. I'm looking to refine the mechanism.

    I hope that satisfies swifts demand to show some evidence. I have been collecting info from airline
    pilots thru to high school high altitude balloon experiments, with a camera atop, and there appears
    to be some major shifts in color and intensity at certain altitudes, so the effect may be at
    boundary layers, still investigating.

    I'll finish today with a little conspiracy stuff regarding the stunning flag and Earth image previously
    submitted. A youtube video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
    NASA never thought people would have the equipment to pull some of their photos apart.

    Very amateurish, NASA. But, no, I didn't do that analysis, I would need the original.
    I'm tempted to see if I can recreate the whole thing in 3D studio just to see if the whole
    Earth should have been in Sun, I could do it, but that could take weeks. Maybe when I retire.
    But, I wish to restate, I think they did go to the Moon, but had some advice from Kubrick on how
    to spice things up a little. The Moon is a very dull place.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Sorry everyone else, this looks like todays priority.
    So today's priority is yet more random, unfounded fantasizing?

    Why won't you answer the simple question about why thousands of people from many different countries would conspire to keep this secret?

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I hope that satisfies swifts demand to show some evidence.
    I don't know about Swift, but to me it just looks like you're posting stuff and calling it evidence. You haven't presented a model, and your argument makes no physical sense to me, so I don't know what it is here that you think you've shown.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    And that is why I will not consider those Saturday Morning Science star images as
    anything other than composition. .
    Define 'composition'

    Explain why you reject them, exactly.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Sorry everyone else, this looks like todays priority.
    <pile of random junk claims snipped>
    I hope that satisfies swifts demand to show some evidence.
    So instead of doing what you were asked, i.e. provide evidence for the physical processes you claim, you pile on a random assortment of more junk claims, none of which are more than vaguely related to the original one.

    How do you expect to ever be able to answer the questions if you keep piling on more crap to ask about instead of providing answers to the questions asked already?

    Answering questions is not today's priority, it's the priority for the entire lifetime of this thread and you still haven't started.


    As for the first two images, checking the EXIF information in the image files show that first was done at f/6.7, with a 1/180 sec exposure at ISO-100 while the second was taken at f/10, with a 1/500 second exposure time at ISO-800.

    If you don't understand that these settings gives noticeably different depths of field and vastly different amounts of graininess, leading someone with even the minimal knowledge of photography I have as an amateur photographer to expect exactly the differences in focus on the moon seen, you should stop trying to compare images right not because any and all conclusions you derive from them will likely be wrong.

    I won't even bother to look at the rest because you've already shown your level of ignorance in image analysis.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    The Moon taken from an orbiter looks brown:
    The fact that the Moon looks different colours depending on illumination and viewing angle is well documented by the Apollo astronauts. It has been described as grey, tan, white and various other shades. It doesn't look very brown here:



    I put that down to Earthshine
    Why? Can you explain how earthshine could have anything to do with the colouration of the Moon in the above image?

    Here are the X-rays from the Moon.
    All you ahve done is show that x-rays are emitted from the Moon as a result of interation with solar X-rays. So what? We already knew that. The rest of what follows is nothing even slightly resembling any kind of evidence that these X-rays are in any way responsible for the visible light we see.

    NASA never thought people would have the equipment to pull some of their photos apart.
    Playing around with the colour, hue, saturation etc of a digitised comressed image does not in any way qualify as image analysis. What is that supposed to prove?

    I didn't do that analysis, I would need the original.
    So would the person who did that analysis. Shame they never bothered to find it.

    I think they did go to the Moon
    Then will you please explain the many many MANY star sightings they took on the way to and from the Moon, which should be impossible according to your model.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Sorry everyone else, this looks like todays priority.
    Not a single question answered?


    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Lets stars with the Moon. What color is the Moon seen from orbit?
    It's moon colored. An uneven brownish gray.


    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    And that is why I will not consider those Saturday Morning Science star images as
    anything other than composition. They are out of context. It is up to someone to show
    me that they were NOT taken looking through the ionosphere.
    You have shown no evidence they were composition (even in your example images, the lighting angles are significantly different, making it impossible for one image to be using parts of another). They were taken at different times, in different directions with respect to the sun, due to being in a 90-minute orbit...of course they don't show the same background!

    And of course they were taken looking through the ionosphere! Neither the Shuttle nor the ISS ever leaves the ionosphere!


    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    There are a few shots from the surface showing this color, many others with different
    colors, sometimes quite different from one frame to the next, so I put that down to
    Earthshine, but colors are a difficult thing.
    But here it is looking silverish again.
    So? This is a very different image, with the moon behind the sunlit upper atmosphere and the Earth itself causing the color correction algorithms in the camera to do who knows what. The moon is brownish gray. The coloration is subtle and difficult to see at night, and easily wiped out by the presence of scattered blue light or eliminated by cameras or hurried graphics people trying to do color balancing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Anyway, better look at some science.
    I am trying to show that much of the light we see from the Moon is the result of X-ray energy
    plane waves, or quasi plane waves being lensed, wavelength shifted, and turned into transverse
    waves, so that we can actually see them with our eyes, or cameras, or simple telescopes. So we
    need x-ray plane waves. Here are the X-rays from the Moon.
    This is pure nonsense, and has already been torn to bits. You can not "turn plane waves into transverse waves". It isn't even a matter of it being difficult or physically impossible, it is just meaningless. The two concepts are completely independent in their application to waves...plane waves can be transverse or longitudinal, and transverse waves can be plane waves or gaussian beams or an infinite number of other geometries. Our eyes have no difficulty with plane waves, and EM waves in vacuum are always transverse waves.

    As for those x-rays, there's clearly nothing you can do with them to produce the visible light image of the moon we actually see from the surface, or from Earth or lunar or interplanetary orbit. You still have no mechanism and no evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Very amateurish, NASA. But, no, I didn't do that analysis, I would need the original.
    No, you didn't do that "analysis" (we've seen it before), and cleaning up imperfect photos for publication isn't amateurish. The original edited version is here: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001137.html

    A raw scan is here:
    http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseo...6882551681.tsv

  10. #160
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    It is up to someone to show me that they were NOT taken looking through the ionosphere.
    No, my dear Solon, what you're doing there is something called shifting the burden of proof. YOU are the one with the dissenting view. It is up to YOU to show that the ionosphere has such a tremendous effect on light that somehow it enables us to see things we're supposedly not able to see outside the ionosphere. It is up to YOU to perform some kind of calculation showing how much your favorite mechanism would affect light. Even an order of magnitude kind of approach would be a start.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I am trying to show that much of the light we see from the Moon is the result of X-ray energy
    plane waves, or quasi plane waves being lensed, wavelength shifted, and turned into transverse
    waves, so that we can actually see them with our eyes, or cameras, or simple telescopes.
    So if I showed you a picture of the moon taken from beyond LEO, outside the Earth's Ionosphere...you would immediately have to retract your claim, would you not?

    From the Stardust spacecraft during an Earth flyby
    http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/ega/lunar.html
    Seventeen hours after Earth flyby, the spacecraft flew over the moon at a distance of about 108,000 km and took 23 images to be used to perform photometric and geometric calibrations of the camera.


    From Deep Impact
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/de...pact-moon.html
    The spacecraft was more than 1.65 million kilometers (1.02 million miles) from the Moon, and a little more than 1.27 million kilometers (789,000 miles) from Earth


    From the Japanese Hayabusa spacecraft
    http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/snews/2004/0519.shtml
    This moon image was acquired at 8:30 p.m. on May 16 (JST). The distance between the moon and Hayabusa at that time was about 710,000 km.


    These are images of the moon from far far beyond the ionosphere, as seen by 'cameras or simple telescopes'

    Will you now retract your claim?

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    The Moon taken from an orbiter looks brown:
    This picture was taken from the Command SModule of Apollo 16. Here is a full film roll with images taken from the Apollo 16 CM.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../magazine/?122

    Here is one picture also showing the LM.


    Here are some images from the other side: the LM looking towards the CSM.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../magazine/?113


    What these pictures clearly demonstrate is that the brown colour of the Moon you see is not because the Moon is brown. In the picture of the LM from the CMS, the colours of the LM are very brown as well. On the other hand, images taken from the LM seem to show more balanced colours.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I've been in the film/video business with all the best gear and fastest
    computers.
    I challenge this statement. You are either exaggerating your experience, or you are outright lying. Your amazing lack of understanding of the most basic principals of light proves this.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,406
    Quote Originally Posted by ZappBrannigan View Post
    I challenge this statement. You are either exaggerating your experience, or you are outright lying. Your amazing lack of understanding of the most basic principals of light proves this.
    He didn't say what he did there.
    "There are powers in this universe beyond anything you know. There is much you have to learn. Go to your homes. Go and give thought to the mysteries of the universe. I will leave you now, in peace." --Galaxy Being

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I've been in the film/video business with all the best gear and fastest
    computers. We didn't have NASAs resources, but we could fool most of the people most
    of the time.
    What was the business, making YouTube videos for conspiracy websites?
    "There are powers in this universe beyond anything you know. There is much you have to learn. Go to your homes. Go and give thought to the mysteries of the universe. I will leave you now, in peace." --Galaxy Being

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Sorry everyone else, this looks like todays priority.
    Yes, it's a shame you didn't actually do so (i.e., provide evidence for your claim).

    Lets stars with the Moon. What color is the Moon seen from orbit?

    No, this is deliberate evasion. You have already shown that you won't accept images from lunar orbit, as you have handwaved about the lunar ionosphere. That you treat the lunar ionosphere - from a lunar atmosphere massing about ten tons total - the same as the terrestrial ionosphere in itself demonstrates the unphysicality of your so-called "model", but let's put that aside for now. There is no reason for you to discuss images from lunar orbit, when you claim that such images should work, unless you are now claiming that such images should not be possible.

    In short, your bringing up images from lunar orbit is a smokescreen.

    Here is an image from the shuttle showing the ISS and the Moon...
    They are out of context. It is up to someone to show me that they were NOT taken looking through the ionosphere.


    You haved already stated you won't accept pictures taken through the ionosphere. So why are you bringing up pictures taken through the ionosphere?

    Your bringing up images from Earth orbit is a smokescreen.

    You have been presented with visual observations, naked-eye, (minimally) telescopic, and photoelectric, and numerous images of stars, the Earth, Moon, and Sun, taken far from both Earth and the Moon - which is one better than your stated "firm goalpost". Every one of these directly refutes your claim. Stop stomping around and waving your arms about Earth orbit this and lunar orbit that. Do you really think we don't see what you're doing?

    Your claim has been refuted by an enormous amount of evidence, even discounting all those images you confidently said didn't exist, then frantically shifted your goalposts after having repeatedly been shown wrong.

    Anyway, better look at some science.

    I am trying to show that much of the light we see from the Moon is the result of X-ray energy plane waves,


    Wrong. The very observations illustrated by the X-ray illustration you posted refute this - but you didn't notice. The X-ray flux from the Moon (and from the stars, and from the Sun) is measured. The sunlit Moon, for example, is much brighter in reflected visible light than in X-rays, as observed from space. Wide spectral imaging results - from gamma to X-ray to UV to visible to IR to radio wavelengths - do not make sense according to your notion. What does that tell you?

    or quasi plane waves

    Or rays of the sixth order, or orgone energy, or beams of pure love. As long as you're going to throw out random terms to sound all sciency, why not be a little more entertaining?

    being lensed, wavelength shifted,

    How, exactly, do you propose this is done, and in such a way that the ever-changing ionosphere just happens to produce consistent views of the sky, rather than the funhouse mirror versions one would expect?

    and turned into transverse waves, so that we can actually see them with our eyes, or cameras, or simple telescopes.

    *Sigh* We have already tried to tell you: EM radiation - like X-rays and visible light - propagating through the vacuum already are transverse waves. You have no idea what you're talking about.

    So we need x-ray plane waves....

    Not without any coherent, let alone credible, physical mechanism to produce an effect for which there is no evidence - and which is disproven by existing evidence.

    The x-rays from the moon are in effect a point source array, so we have wave fronts radiating out, and reaching Earths ionosphere. These wave fronts need to produce a shifted and focused light by the time they reach the surface, so we can see them. I'm looking to refine the mechanism.

    This is gibberish. You cannot refine it any more than you can refine old coffee grounds into platinum.

    I hope that satisfies swifts demand to show some evidence.

    No, you have shown no evidence for your claim. You simply pointed to a fact most of us knew - that the lunar surface emits X-rays when it is irradiated by the Sun, just as it shines brightly in reflected visible light - as seen by crews on the way there, and by numerous spacecraft which have imaged if from hundreds of thousands - millions, in fact - of miles away.

    Not only did you not provide evidence for your claim, but the X-ray observations you noted actually contradict your claim, as already noted.

    I have been collecting info from airline pilots thru to high school high altitude balloon experiments, with a camera atop, and there appears
    to be some major shifts in color and intensity at certain altitudes, so the effect may be at boundary layers, still investigating.


    This shows very clearly the lack of substance of your alleged effect. You say that the ionosphere enables visible-light views of space objects, and even claim the the barely-there lunar atmosphere does this - and now you're talking about it happening in the stratosphere! You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're simply pasting together shiny bits without regard as to whether they are related to each other at all.

    I'll finish today with a little conspiracy stuff regarding the stunning flag and Earth image previously submitted. A youtube video.

    Ah, YouTube, the first refuge of the incompetent conspiracist.

    Not that you have actually analyzed a suitable image, or have demonstrated forensic image analysis expertise, but once again - why are you invoking a conspiracy for a photograph in a place you said they actually were, in an environment where according to you they could see the Earth? Do you ever stop to think about what you're saying? Or is this simply another attempt to avoid dealing with all the observations not taken anywhere near the Earth, or Moon, or any other planetary body?
    Last edited by sts60; 2012-Feb-22 at 02:39 AM. Reason: "imaging" -> "imaging results"

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    The visual observations of Apollo astronauts in cislunar space far from both the Earth and the Moon, the success of visible-light star trackers throughout the solar system all the way out to near interstellar space, and the flood of images of the Earth, Moon, Sun, and hundreds of other bodies as well as stars from interplanetary spacecraft, all refute Solon's claim. I consider it a direct question for him to account for all of this data and explain exactly how all those physicists, astronomers, space scientists, and engineers are all wrong, or part of an airtight conspiracy spanning many decades.

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I hope that satisfies swifts demand to show some evidence.
    It is barely enough, at least to keep you from being infracted at the moment. But, as multiple others have pointed out, it is not a model, nor is it an explanation of how your model best describes actual physics and optics. It is pretty much a bunch of cherry-picked images that you think are consistent with your beliefs.

    I think Luckmeister had a good suggestion, quoted below, that you should follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luckmeister View Post
    I get so confused as to what you really think. Would you please clearly spell it out, including any claimed conspiracy theory. You obviously have some concrete idea of something amiss or this thread would have wrapped up many posts ago. If you can't or won't address questions or accept the extensive evidence given, at least be definitive about your claims, not just stating nagging gut-level Columbo-like feelings. Even though you don't seem to think so, most posters here have been excruciatingly patient with you.
    You also need to answer all the questions put to you. Similar questions from different people can be lumped together.

    I think the stuff I've quoted below from sts60 would be a good place to start.

    Quote Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
    Anyway, better look at some science.

    I am trying to show that much of the light we see from the Moon is the result of X-ray energy plane waves,


    Wrong. The very observations illustrated by the X-ray illustration you posted refute this - but you didn't notice. The X-ray flux from the Moon (and from the stars, and from the Sun) is measured. The sunlit Moon, for example, is much brighter in reflected visible light than in X-rays, as observed from space. Wide spectral imaging results - from gamma to X-ray to UV to visible to IR to radio wavelengths - do not make sense according to your notion. What does that tell you?

    or quasi plane waves

    Or rays of the sixth order, or orgone energy, or beams of pure love. As long as you're going to throw out random terms to sound all sciency, why not be a little more entertaining?

    being lensed, wavelength shifted,

    How, exactly, do you propose this is done, and in such a way that the ever-changing ionosphere just happens to produce consistent views of the sky, rather than the funhouse mirror versions one would expect?

    and turned into transverse waves, so that we can actually see them with our eyes, or cameras, or simple telescopes.

    *Sigh* We have already tried to tell you: EM radiation - like X-rays and visible light - propagating through the vacuum already are transverse waves. You have no idea what you're talking about.

    So we need x-ray plane waves....

    Not without any coherent, let alone credible, physical mechanism to produce an effect for which there is no evidence - and which is disproven by existing evidence.

    The x-rays from the moon are in effect a point source array, so we have wave fronts radiating out, and reaching Earths ionosphere. These wave fronts need to produce a shifted and focused light by the time they reach the surface, so we can see them. I'm looking to refine the mechanism.

    This is gibberish. You cannot refine it any more than you can refine old coffee grounds into platinum.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,771
    The main difference between the photos that are all brownish
    and those that are all bluish is that the brownish photos were
    taken on SO-368 film, balanced for daytime photography under
    a blue sky, while the bluish photos were taken on SO-168,
    balanced for interior photography with tungsten lamps.

    It is also possible that they were processed incorrectly, or that
    the color was shifted when scanning from film to digital.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,771
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    the conspiracy must be centuries if not millennia older,
    consisting of more or less everybody but you.
    That's exactly what I was thinking yesterday. In the ideal
    conspiracy, only the heroic protagonist is out of the loop.

    In this case the hero is the White Night. He is thinking
    of a plot to turn the stars all black, and always Compton
    shift their light to bring them shining back.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,458
    The x-rays from the moon are in effect a point source array
    The Moon is far, far from a point source from the Earth. Are you now claiming they come from one small area on the lunar surface?

    I would also like to hear your analysis on star trackers. They are a critical flaw in your argument and you have attempted to handwave over them, been refuted and not said anything more. Can you please elaborate?
    Last edited by Shaula; 2012-Feb-22 at 08:39 AM. Reason: Mistake on my part about the image posted

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Lets stars with the Moon. What color is the Moon seen from orbit?

    Here is an image from the shuttle showing the ISS and the Moon. So you can take an image of the Moon from space, you say, its obvious! {snipped} Let's take a look at the bigger image. Enlarge the Moon and tell me what you think. I believe my monitor is set up correctly, but I'd like more opinions. I say it is a light brown. {snip} It's one helluva pic though. Must be proof you can see the Moon in space. And which direction is the Sun from? However, there is another image that puts things in a different light. {snip} Composition. A good photographer know all about composition. Oh look, the Moon and Venus! Obviously they can be imaged in space! {snip} And in the larger image, stars too. I don't think they are blowouts. {snip} But a couple of frames further along: {snip} Composition. I've been in the film/video business with all the best gear and fastest computers. We didn't have NASAs resources, but we could fool most of the people most of the time.
    If you wanted to hide something, would fooling most of them actually be any good? What do you think those who aren't fooled are going to do?

    And that is why I will not consider those Saturday Morning Science star images as anything other than composition. They are out of context. It is up to someone to show me that they were NOT taken looking through the ionosphere.
    Well, others have pointed out the logical fallacy of that statement.

    The Moon taken from an orbiter looks brown: {snip} There are a few shots from the surface showing this color, many others with different colors, sometimes quite different from one frame to the next, so I put that down to Earthshine, but colors are a difficult thing.
    The Apollo astronauts reported that the colour of the Moon's surface depended on the direction they were facing - cross Sun, up Sun or down Sun. Are you familiar with the effect called heiligenschein?

    But here it is looking silverish again. {snip}
    Here's a link to a YouTube video of footage obtained by the EPOXI spacecraft of the Earth and the Moon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEcqWuYqrSo

    You might like to note the colour of the Moon. You might also like to note where EPOXI must be to obtain those images. Or are you claiming there's some sort of ionosphere out there too?

    Anyway, better look at some science. I am trying to show that much of the light we see from the Moon is the result of X-ray energy plane waves, or quasi plane waves being lensed, wavelength shifted, and turned into transverse waves, so that we can actually see them with our eyes, or cameras, or simple telescopes. So we need x-ray plane waves. Here are the X-rays from the Moon. These are from fluorescence, and they are produced by Solar X-rays of higher energy colliding with electrons. {snip} The majority of these will be from a layer of electrons, a carpet, just a few cm deep on the lunar surface. Electron density of the Lunar ionosphere you can look up yourselves. The x-rays from the moon are in effect a point source array, so we have wave fronts radiating out, and reaching Earths ionosphere. These wave fronts need to produce a shifted and focused light by the time they reach the surface, so we can see them. I'm looking to refine the mechanism.

    I hope that satisfies swifts demand to show some evidence. I have been collecting info from airline pilots thru to high school high altitude balloon experiments, with a camera atop, and there appears to be some major shifts in color and intensity at certain altitudes, so the effect may be at boundary layers, still investigating.
    I'm no scientist, so I'll leave the discussion of your mechanism to others. But as I said in post #137: And could you please answer the question Gillianren has asked several times: If stars are invisible outside the ionosphere, why would the world's scientists and astronauts conspire to cover it up? It would be like botanists suppressing news of the discovery of a previously unknown species of orchid.

    I'll finish today with a little conspiracy stuff regarding the stunning flag and Earth image previously submitted. A youtube video. {snip} NASA never thought people would have the equipment to pull some of their photos apart.
    You what? An organisation at the cutting edge of technology, and they never thought people would come up with new technology to examine photos? Evidence please. There are large amounts of the rocks brought back from the Moon by Apollo which haven't been touched yet. NASA's saving them for methods of analysis which have either already been invented since Apollo, or which haven't been invented yet. How could NASA be prescient enough to save rocks for newly developed analysis methods, yet not think to apply the same thought process to their photographic record?

    {snip} Very amateurish, NASA. But, no, I didn't do that analysis, I would need the original. I'm tempted to see if I can recreate the whole thing in 3D studio just to see if the whole Earth should have been in Sun, I could do it, but that could take weeks. Maybe when I retire. But, I wish to restate, I think they did go to the Moon...
    So did the Apollo astronauts sight stars for alignment purposes while travelling between the Earth and the Moon (the infamous P23) or not?

    ...but had some advice from Kubrick on how to spice things up a little.
    Spice up the Moon? It's the Language Moon! Why does it need spicing up? Twelve men stood, walked on, ran on and investigated a place which is not the Earth. How could that possibly need "spicing up"? I'm sorry, but that's like saying that my wedding photos were faked because every good wedding has fireworks and elephants, and there's no evidence of either of those in my wedding photos.

    The Moon is a very dull place.
    Gah!

    But if your theory is right, the astronauts at the Moon would have been back in sunlight after three days of darkness. I think they'd find the Moon très incroyable.
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-Feb-22 at 06:43 PM. Reason: Language

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    It is also possible that they were processed incorrectly, or that
    the color was shifted when scanning from film to digital.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    I'd vote for processing, there was this problem with colour casts right from the original release of the material when the copying was photographic rather than digital.

  24. #174
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Lets stars with the Moon. What color is the Moon seen from orbit?
    It's your job to tell us what YOU think it is since you are making a claim about being able to see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    ...And which direction is the Sun from?
    If you don't know something as basic as determining that from a picture, then your analysis is in serious doubt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    It is up to someone to show me that...
    Wrong. But; you see that some people have politely indulged in some examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    There are a few shots from the surface showing this color, many others with different colors, sometimes quite different from one frame to the next, so I put that down to Earthshine, but colors are a difficult thing. But here it is looking silverish again.
    Handwaving. Do YOU know the angles and intensities of sunshine and moonshine in that picture?

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Anyway, better look at some science.
    That's not science, that's a bunch of words.
    If you are analyzing light, then there are a few pieces that you need to show us.
    What is the spectrum distribution and spectral lines of the source light, and why those lines?
    What is the lensing mechanism and what is the formula for the shift?
    What is the energy level of the ionosphere, and what formulas define the conversion of the incomming energy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Electron density of the Lunar ionosphere you can look up yourselves.
    No; We have no way to know that what we find is what you are using.
    You must show us what you are using.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I have been collecting info from airline pilots...
    Why would an altitude that's still below the ionosphere have any bearing on the discussion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    ... thru to high school high altitude balloon experiments, with a camera atop, and there appears to be some major shifts in color and intensity at certain altitudes, so the effect may be at boundary layers, still investigating.
    Again; Even balloons only reach half way to the ionosphere, why would this show anything about the ionosphere affects?
    Besides how can you base your analysis on missing information?

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Very amateurish, NASA. But, no, I didn't do that analysis, I would need the original. I'm tempted to see if I can recreate the whole thing in 3D studio just to see if the whole Earth should have been in Sun, I could do it, but that could take weeks.
    You don't need that kind of analysis. It can be computed using a little trig and knowing the distances of the Earth and Sun, and observing the amount of the Earth that is sunlit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    But, I wish to restate, I think they did go to the Moon, but had some advice from Kubrick on how to spice things up a little. The Moon is a very dull place.
    Then please explain how they could have "spiced it up" when we had live video from the missions?
    I saw it live, and these pictures reflect what I saw.

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter B View Post
    It would be like botanists suppressing news of the discovery of a previously unknown species of orchid.
    More like botanists suppressing the fact that orchids even exist.

  26. #176
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter B View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I'll finish today with a little conspiracy stuff regarding the stunning flag and Earth image previously submitted. A youtube video. {snip} NASA never thought people would have the equipment to pull some of their photos apart.
    You what? An organisation at the cutting edge of technology, and they never thought people would come up with new technology to examine photos? Evidence please.
    As a matter of fact, the EXIF data shows that particular file (the originally published one from NASA, not the one adjusted to show the processing) was generated with Photoshop 5.0. NASA was probably aware that other people had access to image editing software when they cleaned that photo up for publication.

  27. #177
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Lets stars with the Moon. What color is the Moon seen from orbit?
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter B View Post
    The Apollo astronauts reported that the colour of the Moon's surface depended on the direction they were facing - cross Sun, up Sun or down Sun. Are you familiar with the effect called heiligenschein?
    Solon...do you concede that angle of lighting is the reason why the Moon looks different colors at different times??

  28. #178
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,378
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Solon...do you concede that angle of lighting is the reason why the Moon looks different colors at different times??
    It's really only one reason. Just off the top of my head: lighting differences, film differences, filter differences, film processing differences, exposure differences, color balance adjustments by digital cameras, film scanners, and by the people preparing the images for publication, atmospheric effects when seen from the ground or across Earth's horizon...

    So Solon, do you concede that the variation in moon color in different images is in fact expected, and not evidence of any sort of coverup or tampering?

  29. #179
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,748
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    It's really only one reason. Just off the top of my head: lighting differences, film differences, filter differences, film processing differences, exposure differences, color balance adjustments by digital cameras, film scanners, and by the people preparing the images for publication, atmospheric effects when seen from the ground or across Earth's horizon...
    The moon is also not a uniform color and so there will be some variation based on what part of the moon you are viewing (though probably not different enough to account for brown to grey by that alone).
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  30. #180
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,759
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    It's really only one reason. Just off the top of my head: lighting differences, film differences, filter differences, film processing differences, exposure differences, color balance adjustments by digital cameras, film scanners, and by the people preparing the images for publication, atmospheric effects when seen from the ground or across Earth's horizon...
    ... ionosphere density... *snickers... runs!*

    I think we have established that there are star trackers that are essentially just cameras. Let's say we have an image of one particular star, taken with such a star tracker, on Earth, during testing, with the exact same settings that would be used in-flight. And then compare that to an image of that same star, taken with the same star tracker, the same settings, but, let's say, halfway between Jupiter and Saturn. If those images are the same (or a little brighter on the in-flight pic), would that be convincing enough?
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

Similar Threads

  1. One Night, Dozens of Triple Conjunctions
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-Mar-26, 10:40 PM
  2. JEN (questions about Sirius and planet conjunctions)
    By Jeanny514 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2012-Jan-03, 02:24 AM
  3. Earth-Venus Inferior Conjunctions
    By leokor in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2011-Feb-10, 11:09 PM
  4. Mercury as Morning Star with many Conjunctions
    By Centaur in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2009-Jan-29, 03:19 AM
  5. Inferior Conjunctions of Venus with Earth
    By BigDon in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2008-Dec-15, 07:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: