Evan Burton Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Duane, I would not have expected you to admit you were wrong; you appear to be incapable of it. Other people, however, can examine the evidence and see for themselves. Notice how the dot we are pointing to is in exactly the position where the LM would be? Directly above a crater (the dark shape). If it were a rock, then that rock would be visible in 7071... but there is nothing there. The only object that matches is the LM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 11, 2008 Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 Duane, I would not have expected you to admit you were wrong; you appear to be incapable of it. Other people, however, can examine the evidence and see for themselves. Using projection again I see.... Your assessment of my character is completely WRONG ! .. I have admitted several times on this very forum that I have been wrong about certain evidence that I presented ... I don't believe that I'm wrong about this though . Notice how the dot we are pointing to is in exactly the position where the LM would be? Directly above a crater (the dark shape). If it were a rock, then that rock would be visible in 7071... but there is nothing there. The only object that matches is the LM. If you would bother to look at the Conrad photo again you will see that there are TWO OBJECTS on the horizon ... One is the LM and one is a much SMALLER OBJECT which could be a rock or a bump or even possibly the flag . It is this SMALLER OBJECT that is located near the LM , and directly behind the crater, that your arrow points to .... And it is also this SMALLER OBJECT on the lunar horizon which shows up in Bean's visor reflection, NOT THE HIGHLY REFLECTIVE LARGER OBJECT OF THE LM . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 11, 2008 Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 (edited) No Duane its when you post crap and then go TED on us as you try and defend your poor work that we can all see the real Duane. A ignorat shell playing in a world that is well beyond him. Thanks the the giggles today TED. It's comments such as that one which show how desperate, not to mention despicable, you really are . I'm not sure at this point why none of the moderators on this forum will do anything to stop your insulting, immature, schoolyard bully mentality behavior but I highy suspect it might have something to do with you being pals with Burton ... It would appear that the rules don't apply to either one of you and you can post any hateful garbage you please . As for what we are suppossed to be discussing , I haven't seen you produce any concrete evidence to support your opinion about the Apollo 12 photos ... All I've seen so far is your typical bluster and uncalled for insulting nonsense. BTW .. You spelled ignorant wrong .... How ironic ... It's not until recently that I have realized how stupid you really are . Edited February 11, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 No Duane its when you post crap and then go TED on us as you try and defend your poor work that we can all see the real Duane. A ignorat shell playing in a world that is well beyond him. Thanks the the giggles today TED. It's comments such as that one which show how desperate, not to mention despicable, you really are . I'm not sure at this point why none of the moderators on this forum will do anything to stop your insulting, immature, schoolyard bully mentality behavior but I highy suspect it might have something to do with you being pals with Burton ... It would appear that the rules don't apply to either one of you and you can post any hateful garbage you please . As for what we are suppossed to be discussing , I haven't seen you produce any concrete evidence to suport your opinion about the Apollo 12 photos ... All I've seen so far is your typical bluster and uncalled for insulting nonsense. BTW .. You spelled ignorant wrong .... How ironic ... It's not until recently that I have realized how stupid you really are . Nice attempt at deflecting away from your weakness..that is your ability to deal wiht the Apollo photography in a competent manner. I've posted all the evidence needed to support my position and destroy yours...the size of the LM in the reflection. Now either you can rebut this evidence and tell us how large in pixels YOU think the LM should be ( remember YOU claim it should be BIGGER thatn the reflected image) or you need to admit you are wrong. Balls in your court TED. We know you can dribble, but can you shoot and score? I'll wager no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 If you would bother to look at the Conrad photo again you will see that there are TWO OBJECTS on the horizon ... One is the LM and one is a much SMALLER OBJECT which could be a rock or a bump or even possibly the flag .It is this SMALLER OBJECT that is located near the LM , and directly behind the crater, that your arrow points to .... And it is also this SMALLER OBJECT on the lunar horizon which shows up in Bean's visor reflection, NOT THE HIGHLY REFLECTIVE LARGER OBJECT OF THE LM . TED ALERT! TED ALERT! A word of advice Duane, when you are in a hole the best thing you can do is stop digging! ROFLMAO! Sorry to burst your bubble but second item in the horizon is only 6 PIXELS in the original photo. There is no way this item becomes 5 PIXELS in the reflected image. BOOM! Duane blown to bits again! LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 11, 2008 Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 (edited) Sorry to burst your bubble but second item in the horizon is only 6 PIXELS in the original photo. There is no way this item becomes 5 PIXELS in the reflected image. BOOM! Duane blown to bits again! LOL! I'm sorry , but did I miss this "pixel " proof somewhere ? When the visor reflection is enlarged to this size, it magnifies EVERYTHING and there is no way that the LM would look so tiny as to be almost INVISIBLE. But if the LM is as tiny and as invisible as you suggest, then that might just explain why artist Alan Bean forgot about it when he painted his "memory" of his buddy Pete on the "moon" with the LM reflecting that bright "sunlight", directly behind his left shoulder. Maybe Bean forgot the LM was there, like he forgot where the Van Allen radiation belts are, or that they ever flew high enough to encounter them, or why he also forgot to NOT POINT THE TV CAMERA TOWARDS THE SUN ! ... Or why he NEVER KNEW how to fly the LM and left ALL of that particular duty up to his pal Pete , while "wondering what he was doing " !! ... I wonder what Al would have done if Pete had gotten too sick from radiation poisoning to fly the LM ? .... Just drift around in deep space until a rescue crew came to pick him up like the 'Lonely Astronaut '?? And we are suppossed to believe that this character actually flew to and landed on the Moon . Edited February 11, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 (edited) Sorry to burst your bubble but second item in the horizon is only 6 PIXELS in the original photo. There is no way this item becomes 5 PIXELS in the reflected image. BOOM! Duane blown to bits again! LOL! I'm sorry , but did I miss this "pixel " proof somewhere ? NO. you talked about it in a post upthread. However it appears it is beyond your understanding as we will see below. When the visor reflection is enlarged to this size, it magnifies EVERYTHING and there is no way that the LM would look so tiny as to be almost INVISIBLE. Sheesh...check the ratios on width between the astronaut at the the helmet and the width of the LM. The do the same for the refledction image. Son of a gun...they MATCH. Imagine that. The REFLECTION IMAGE OF THE LEM MATCHES THE FULL IMAGE for width ratio. Guess what that means Dunae...it means the LM SHOULD look as tiny as it does in the reflection. But if the LM is as tiny and as invisible as you suggest, then that might just explain why artist Alan Bean forgot about it when he painted his "memory" of his buddy Pete on the "moon" with the LM reflecting that bright "sunlight", directly behind his left shoulder. Maybe Bean forgot the LM was there, like he forgot where the Van Allen radiation belts are, or that they ever flew high enough to encounter them, or why he also forgot to NOT POINT THE TV CAMERA TOWARDS THE SUN ! ... Or why he NEVER KNEW how to fly the LM and left ALL of that particular duty up to his pal Pete , while "wondering what he was doing " !! ... I wonder what Al would have done if Pete had gotten too sick from radiation poisoning to fly the LM ? .... Just drift around in deep space until a rescue crew came to pick him up like the 'Lonely Astronaut '?? And we are suppossed to believe that this character actually flew to and landed on the Moon . What Bean created in his artwork has no bearing on the Apollo photography, and your "take" on his actions mean even less. What a very poor strawman Duane. Edited February 11, 2008 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 11, 2008 Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 (edited) Sheesh...check the ratios on width between the astronaut at the the helmet and the width of the LM. The do the same for the refledction image. Son of a gun...they MATCH. Imagine that. The REFLECTION IMAGE OF THE LEM MATCHES THE FULL IMAGE for width ratio. Guess what that means Dunae...it means the LM SHOULD look as tiny as it does in the reflection. Would you mind translating that into English please, so "Ted the moron" can reply ? I'm sorry, but is that suppossed to be your empirical pixel proof of how tiny the LM would be in the visor reflection ? ... If so, no wonder I missed it the first time around.... It doesn't make any sense... but it sure is a mighty fine tap dance ! What about that bright "sun" reflection off of the LM in at least three different places ?... Did that just magically disappear too because the pixels are so small ? ... (Oh dear, I guess Mr. Photogod will now use that as part of his tap dance routine as well.) What Bean created in his artwork has no bearing on the Apollo photography, and your "take" on his actions mean even less. What a very poor strawman Duane Sorry to burst your Apollo fantasy bubble again, but those are the FACTS about our "Moon" walking hero Al Beano , not just my "strawman" take on them . Read them again and maybe even you will realize that all was not well with that Apollo 12 picture ... Pun intended . Maybe Bean forgot the LM was there, like he forgot where the Van Allen radiation belts are, or that they ever flew high enough to encounter them, or why he also forgot to NOT POINT THE TV CAMERA TOWARDS THE SUN ! ... Or why he NEVER KNEW how to fly the LM and left ALL of that particular duty up to his pal Pete , while "wondering what he was doing " !! ... I wonder what Al would have done if Pete had gotten too sick from radiation poisoning to fly the LM ? .... Just drift around in deep space until a rescue crew came to pick him up like the 'Lonely Astronaut '?? And we are suppossed to believe that this character actually flew to and landed on the Moon. BTW ... My name is spelled Duane , not "Dunae " .... You act like you're the one with dyslexia . Edited February 11, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Sheesh...check the ratios on width between the astronaut at the the helmet and the width of the LM. The do the same for the refledction image. Son of a gun...they MATCH. Imagine that. The REFLECTION IMAGE OF THE LEM MATCHES THE FULL IMAGE for width ratio. Guess what that means Dunae...it means the LM SHOULD look as tiny as it does in the reflection. Would you mind translating that into English please, so "Ted the moron" can reply ? How wide is the astronauts width at the helmet in the reflection? How wide is the LM in the reflection? What is the ratio? Now do the same for the full image. Compare the results. Understand now? I'm sorry, but is that suppossed to be your empirical pixel proof of how tiny the LM would be in the visor reflection ? ... If so, no wonder I missed it the first time around.... It doesn't make any sense... but it sure is a mighty fine tap dance ! I'm well aware that it does not make sense to you, thats nothing new. What about that bright "sun" reflection off of the LM in at least three different places ?... Did that just magically disappear too because the pixels are so small ? ... (Oh dear, I guess Mr. Photogod will now use that as part of his tap dance routine as well.) Well geez, you take an image area that is about 25 pixels wide and reduce it to 2 to 3 pixels wide and you think you will still see reflections? The pixels are still the same size, the problem is there are not enough of them left to resolve the LM legs. Digital photography 101. Thats why it would be in your best interest to have a basic understanding of the subject matter before you start digging your hole. What Bean created in his artwork has no bearing on the Apollo photography, and your "take" on his actions mean even less. What a very poor strawman Duane Sorry to burst your Apollo fantasy bubble again, but those are the FACTS about our "Moon" walking hero Al Beano , not just my "strawman" take on them . Read them again and maybe even you will realize that all was not well with that Apollo 12 picture ... Pun intended . Maybe Bean forgot the LM was there, like he forgot where the Van Allen radiation belts are, or that they ever flew high enough to encounter them, or why he also forgot to NOT POINT THE TV CAMERA TOWARDS THE SUN ! ... Or why he NEVER KNEW how to fly the LM and left ALL of that particular duty up to his pal Pete , while "wondering what he was doing " !! ... I wonder what Al would have done if Pete had gotten too sick from radiation poisoning to fly the LM ? .... Just drift around in deep space until a rescue crew came to pick him up like the 'Lonely Astronaut '?? And we are suppossed to believe that this character actually flew to and landed on the Moon. Yes its still a strawman Duane. Artwork is just that...art. And artists have artistic licence. You lose again. BTW ... My name is spelled Duane , not "Dunae " .... You act like you're the one with dyslexia . Dunae...Duane....whatever.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 (edited) How wide is the astronauts width at the helmet in the reflection? How wide is the LM in the reflection? What is the ratio? Now do the same for the full image. Compare the results. Understand now? Comprende' ... And I still say the LM would have at least shown up in the enlarged zoomed in visor reflection, instead of looking like an almost invisible tiny little bump that is not even located in the correct position behind the crater .. But then you're "Mr. Photogod" and I'm only "Ted the Moron", so I have no doubt that everyone will believe you instead of me. Yes its still a strawman Duane. Artwork is just that...art. And artists have artistic licence. You lose again. I'm not just referring to his "artwork" and you know it ... I'm referring to his admitted inability to fly the lunar module, his inability to remember if his mission flew high enough to encounter the Van Allen radiation belts, his inability to follow simple instructions on where NOT to point the TV camera so it wouldn't break and most importantly his inability to tell the same Moon story as his buddy Gene Cernan... Gene claimed that the LM descent engine was extremely loud and Bean said it didn't make any sound at all . Not to mention the complete contradiction between Bean's version of the what happens to a LM in the vacuum of space with no power, and what allegedy happened on Apollo 13 when they lost their power in deep space ... Apparently NASA's actors-nots don't know the difference between hot and cold. The function of Apollo climate control http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_FyKuZHgY8M Yep, that would be NASA and the ACTOR-NOT'S for ya ... NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER . Edited February 12, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 (edited) How wide is the astronauts width at the helmet in the reflection? How wide is the LM in the reflection? What is the ratio? Now do the same for the full image. Compare the results. Understand now? Comprende' ... And I still say the LM would have at least shown up in the enlarged zoomed in visor reflection, instead of looking like an almost invisible tiny little bump that is not even located in the correct position behind the crater .. But then you're "Mr. Photogod" and I'm only "Ted the Moron", so I have no doubt that everyone will believe you instead of me. Then tell us just how big it should be. You have the data, give us your answer instead of "saying" Yes its still a strawman Duane. Artwork is just that...art. And artists have artistic licence. You lose again. I'm not just referring to his "artwork" and you know it ... I'm referring to his admitted inability to fly the lunar module, his inability to remember if his mission flew high enough to encounter the Van Allen radiation belts, his inability to follow simple instructions on where NOT to point the TV camera so it wouldn't break and most importantly his inability to tell the same Moon story as his buddy Gene Cernan... Gene claimed that the LM descent engine was extremely loud and Bean said it didn't make any sound at all . Not to mention the complete contradiction between Bean's version of the what happens to a LM in the vacuum of space with no power, and what allegedy happened on Apollo 13 when they lost their power in deep space ... Apparently NASA's actors-nots don't know the difference between hot and cold. The function of Apollo climate control http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_FyKuZHgY8M Yep, that would be NASA and the ACTOR-NOT'S for ya ... NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER . Duane you are simply doing what you do best and thats trying to confuse the issue with more issues. Your original post contained your strawman about the artwork, and in true fashion, as your arguement about the photos went up in flames you tried to steer the argument to different directions to cover for your failures. What number would that be on the disinformation list? Edited February 12, 2008 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 Duane you are simply doing what you do best and thats trying to confuse the issue with more issues. Your original post contained your strawman about the artwork, and in true fashion, as your arguement about the photos went up in flames you tried to steer the argument to different directions to cover for your failures. What number would that be on the disinformation list? And that would be Mr. Photogod speak for ... " Good grief , I hope nobody watches that YouTube video that "Dunae" linked here as a "strawman" tactic to "confuse the issue" of the fact that Alan Bean doesn't know jack about flying to the Moon and even though "Dunae" knows he can't prove that the Apollo 12 photo is a moonset fake because I outfoxed him again, he can present other evidence which makes it abundantly clear that the official Apollo record is a total crock . So which is it Criag... Craig.. whatever ... IS IT HOT OR COLD IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE ? NASA and the Apollo astronots don't know, but you obviously know everything ( or at least pretend that you do ) so how about you answer that burning question for NASA, so their astronots can stop embarrassing themselves with every interview where they get tripped up and give the game away that they never went to the Moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 As I learned more than 60 years ago in high school physics... the VACUUM OF SPACE HAS NO TEMPERATURE. The values we call hot and cold must have molecules activated to become heated or cooled. By definition a vacuum is void of all matter. There are no particles whose energy can be measured. Only objects within a vacuum can have a temperature. Therefore on the moon, the surface would be very hot, activated by sunrays; rocks would be hot. But anything in the shade would be cold, except for conducted heat from contiguous matter. The dark side of the moon would be extremely cold. The LEM, LRV and the spacesuits would be extremely hot with no atmosphere to filter the suns rays. A metal tool would become too hot to handle. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 As I learned more than 60 years ago in high school physics...the VACUUM OF SPACE HAS NO TEMPERATURE. The values we call hot and cold must have molecules activated to become heated or cooled. By definition a vacuum is void of all matter. There are no particles whose energy can be measured. Only objects within a vacuum can have a temperature. Therefore on the moon, the surface would be very hot, activated by sunrays; rocks would be hot. But anything in the shade would be cold, except for conducted heat from contiguous matter. The dark side of the moon would be extremely cold. The LEM, LRV and the spacesuits would be extremely hot with no atmosphere to filter the suns rays. A metal tool would become too hot to handle. Jack I quite agree. That's why they wore gloves. (As well as to protect them from the vacuum of space of course.) The LEM had plenty of thermal protection. Spacesuits had a cooling system built-in to stop astronauts from overheating. Incidentally, it's not stricly true to say the vacuum of space has zero temperature, although the point is a subtle one. The temperature of space is actually around 3 K, believed to be caused by microwave energy left over after the Big Bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Duane you are simply doing what you do best and thats trying to confuse the issue with more issues. Your original post contained your strawman about the artwork, and in true fashion, as your arguement about the photos went up in flames you tried to steer the argument to different directions to cover for your failures. What number would that be on the disinformation list? And that would be Mr. Photogod speak for ... " Good grief , I hope nobody watches that YouTube video that "Dunae" linked here as a "strawman" tactic to "confuse the issue" of the fact that Alan Bean doesn't know jack about flying to the Moon and even though "Dunae" knows he can't prove that the Apollo 12 photo is a moonset fake because I outfoxed him again, he can present other evidence which makes it abundantly clear that the official Apollo record is a total crock . Sheesh, I dont care about the video or the "temp" in space because the discussion you started was about the A12 photos. Your sorry atempt to move the discussion in another direction has been duly noted. I did not outfox you Duane. I simply presented evidence that showed your "belief" was wrong. If you want to move thedisscussion along why not close out one segment first, like the topic of this thread...that YOU started. So which is it Criag... Craig.. whatever ... IS IT HOT OR COLD IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE ? NASA and the Apollo astronots don't know, but you obviously know everything ( or at least pretend that you do ) so how about you answer that burning question for NASA, so their astronots can stop embarrassing themselves with every interview where they get tripped up and give the game away that they never went to the Moon. Why do I have this nagging feeling you are going to embarass yourself on this topic as well...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now