NASA Editing Photos?
- Thread starter CounslerCoffee
- Start date
How this works: Prior to going into space, scientists estimated that the neutral gravity point - the location between the earth and moon, where the moon's and the earth's gravitational pull is zero or neutral - was approximately 23,900 miles above the lunar surface. Based on this estimate, the theory of 1/6 lunar gravity was rationalized. However, this is not
accurate because the actual neutral point is located approximately
43,495 from the moon.
Using the actual distance equates to a much higher lunar gravity.
http://www.longislandlan.com/ngravity.gif
accurate because the actual neutral point is located approximately
43,495 from the moon.
Using the actual distance equates to a much higher lunar gravity.
http://www.longislandlan.com/ngravity.gif
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
I said that the moon was fiction! A false image placed there by the quasi-homosexual-illuminati.
The moon is fiction! Free your minds you possible homosexuals!
No, just me. I'm always right.
That's where you should be posting; philosophy.
The moon is fiction! Free your minds you possible homosexuals!
No, just me. I'm always right.
That's where you should be posting; philosophy.
Last edited:
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Explain, please.
Philosophy is incorporated into everything. Here: the philosophy of belief. Implications that rocks are more than rocks are just annoying. And if any form of rational or critical thinking can be shown to these fools, they will have the option to step out of ignorance... and if they don't realize certain things, that ignorance will become stupidity. I am not saying people have to accept certain positions.. just that they first research them, and then think about it. And weigh the evidence.
Evidence for rocks being more than rocks: none.
Evidence against rocks being more than rocks: THEY ARE SURROUNDED BY OTHER ROCKS. That is not the only thing. Why would NASA allow such things to come out? This is foolishly ridiculous.
I am done here. You can quote me, respond, whatever, but I will not respond or read your responses.
I just know I am better than this... from now on, I will stop arguing the rational side of things when the other side won't consider reason.
Evidence for rocks being more than rocks: none.
Evidence against rocks being more than rocks: THEY ARE SURROUNDED BY OTHER ROCKS. That is not the only thing. Why would NASA allow such things to come out? This is foolishly ridiculous.
I am done here. You can quote me, respond, whatever, but I will not respond or read your responses.
I just know I am better than this... from now on, I will stop arguing the rational side of things when the other side won't consider reason.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Reason? Ellimist, you're posting in the pseudoscience section!
Try not to take everything so seriously, sheesh.
Try not to take everything so seriously, sheesh.
Prior to going into space, scientists estimated that the neutral gravity point - the location between the earth and moon, where the moon's and the earth's gravitational pull is zero or neutral - was approximately 23,900 miles above the lunar surface. Based on this estimate, the theory of 1/6 lunar gravity was rationalized. However, this is not
accurate because the actual neutral point is located approximately
43,495 from the moon.
Using the actual distance equates to a much higher lunar gravity.
This is from William Brian's book Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program. Brian claimed that NASA discovered that the acceleration due to gravity at the lunar surface was actually 0.64g instead of the figure of around 0.165g that is widely held to be accurate, and was known hundreds of years before NASA was even conceived.
Brian arrived at the conclusion that the moon was actually more massive than was previously thought due to discrepancies in the statements of the gravitational "neutral point" -- the point along an imaginary line between the earth and the moon at which the force due to gravity acting on a point mass will be equal from the earth and from the moon. This is, traditionally, roughly one-tenth the distance from the moon to the earth (because the masses of the earth and moon are roughly in the ratio 9<sup>2</sup> : 1). The thing is is that there is a discrepancy in the location of the neutral point even in the traditional sense because there is more than one definition of the neutral point, keep in mind that space is three-dimensional, and not one-dimensional. The definition given above, as it happens, is not useful in navigating spacecraft.
The point at which Apollo spacecraft were considered to enter the moon's "sphere of influence" (a neutral point) was actually ahead of the earth-moon line and was thus a greater distance both from the earth and from the moon.
accurate because the actual neutral point is located approximately
43,495 from the moon.
Using the actual distance equates to a much higher lunar gravity.
This is from William Brian's book Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program. Brian claimed that NASA discovered that the acceleration due to gravity at the lunar surface was actually 0.64g instead of the figure of around 0.165g that is widely held to be accurate, and was known hundreds of years before NASA was even conceived.
Brian arrived at the conclusion that the moon was actually more massive than was previously thought due to discrepancies in the statements of the gravitational "neutral point" -- the point along an imaginary line between the earth and the moon at which the force due to gravity acting on a point mass will be equal from the earth and from the moon. This is, traditionally, roughly one-tenth the distance from the moon to the earth (because the masses of the earth and moon are roughly in the ratio 9<sup>2</sup> : 1). The thing is is that there is a discrepancy in the location of the neutral point even in the traditional sense because there is more than one definition of the neutral point, keep in mind that space is three-dimensional, and not one-dimensional. The definition given above, as it happens, is not useful in navigating spacecraft.
The point at which Apollo spacecraft were considered to enter the moon's "sphere of influence" (a neutral point) was actually ahead of the earth-moon line and was thus a greater distance both from the earth and from the moon.
Last edited:
And furthermore, to say that
is complete balderdash. One wasn't used to ratioanlise the other. No one went nine-tenths the distance to the moon and measured the strength of the moon and the earth's gravitational fields there. You simply equate the terms of the force of gravitational attraction on a point mass* for the moon and the earth and solve for r. The "theory of 1/6 lunar gravity" is merely the result of a computation based on Newton's law of gravitation and his second law of motion when you input the values of the moon's mass, its radius and the universal gravitational constant, G. i.e. a = GM/r<sup>2</sup>
Brian doesn't dispute Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. He merely disputed the value of M in the above equation because he inferred that NASA had discovered that it was different from the original value after noticing the difference in its position as stated in NASA's documents about the point at which the spacecraft would enter the moon's sphere of influence.
<sup>*<i>GM<sub>m</sub>m/r<sup>2</sup> = GM<sub>e</sub>m/R<sup>2</sup></i> where M<sub>m</sub> is the mass of the moon, M<sub>e</sub> is the mass of the earth, r and R are their respective distances from the neutral point and m is the smaller mass.</sup>
is complete balderdash. One wasn't used to ratioanlise the other. No one went nine-tenths the distance to the moon and measured the strength of the moon and the earth's gravitational fields there. You simply equate the terms of the force of gravitational attraction on a point mass* for the moon and the earth and solve for r. The "theory of 1/6 lunar gravity" is merely the result of a computation based on Newton's law of gravitation and his second law of motion when you input the values of the moon's mass, its radius and the universal gravitational constant, G. i.e. a = GM/r<sup>2</sup>
Brian doesn't dispute Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. He merely disputed the value of M in the above equation because he inferred that NASA had discovered that it was different from the original value after noticing the difference in its position as stated in NASA's documents about the point at which the spacecraft would enter the moon's sphere of influence.
<sup>*<i>GM<sub>m</sub>m/r<sup>2</sup> = GM<sub>e</sub>m/R<sup>2</sup></i> where M<sub>m</sub> is the mass of the moon, M<sub>e</sub> is the mass of the earth, r and R are their respective distances from the neutral point and m is the smaller mass.</sup>
Last edited:
B
buddhafish
Guest
In the past NASA has been hacked, don't you think the people that were doing that weren't in there for a reason. They were probably chaseing one of these hoaxes to the point of prosecution, and they didn't find anything... other than some exploit to get into their system.
The other reason why NASA would withhold information is purely if it would reveal any Defense strategies implimented, or for that matter counter-intelligence, but needless to say that was the state of the world approx. a Decade ago.
The other reason why NASA would withhold information is purely if it would reveal any Defense strategies implimented, or for that matter counter-intelligence, but needless to say that was the state of the world approx. a Decade ago.
AD1,
I am not going to use the terms wacko, but I do not believe in the ideas that we never went to the moon, and I have never heard of the 'Apollo record'.
I do not discount the rumors that there may be some structures on either the moon, or Mars. IMO, there've been too many reported incidents of the moon visits being accompanied by other vehicles. These reports have come directly from the astraunauts/cosmanauts themselves. Mars is a whole other matter.
Plus, it's always puzzled me as to why we've stayed away from the moon for so long.
On a final note. I believe NASA isn't the main part of our space program any longer. I believe the space program is now in the hands of our military. IMO, NASA is a quasi-robotics aspect of our space program. I just have a hard time believing we would continue to pull funding from NASA if it was our only avenue to the stars.
I am not going to use the terms wacko, but I do not believe in the ideas that we never went to the moon, and I have never heard of the 'Apollo record'.
I do not discount the rumors that there may be some structures on either the moon, or Mars. IMO, there've been too many reported incidents of the moon visits being accompanied by other vehicles. These reports have come directly from the astraunauts/cosmanauts themselves. Mars is a whole other matter.
Plus, it's always puzzled me as to why we've stayed away from the moon for so long.
On a final note. I believe NASA isn't the main part of our space program any longer. I believe the space program is now in the hands of our military. IMO, NASA is a quasi-robotics aspect of our space program. I just have a hard time believing we would continue to pull funding from NASA if it was our only avenue to the stars.
Don Hakman
Registered Senior Member
Conspiracies aside here is proof of the color editing.
http://fire.prohosting.com/cleoger/marscolors/
http://fire.prohosting.com/cleoger/marscolors/
blackholesun
Registered Senior Member
VRob said:
No Russians have ever been to the Moon. Just their robots.
VRob said:
Because there is no longer a space race and a lot of people believe money can be used right here on earth...althought I'd like to see us go to the moon again myself.
VRob said:
Because people have to see a reason for it to support it. I support the space program. I know a lot of people that aren't willing to give up their tax money for sending a man to Mars or a Moon base anytime soon. Hopefully Bush's new NASA plan is full of hot air and something really comes of it.
VRob said:
The "Apollo record" is the name given by certain moon hoax conspiracy theorists for Apollo photography, film- and TV-footage and other documentation of the Apollo project.
Well, you clearly have not been paying attention. As Blackholesun pointed out to you, no cosmonauts have ever visited the moon. And I challenge you to find one shred of evidence that an Apollo astronaut has claimed that their mission was accompanied by "other vehicles." (Do I take it you mean extraterrestrial spacecraft?)
Perhaps economics is not your forte.
What you believe based only on the flimsiest of evidence is irrelevant.
Don,
That sites Funny.
Just note the Mars lander was stuck in a position for days taking pictures.
If I took pictures all day long at one spot, at one horizon, I would notice colour changes from the morning to day and then evening to night.
Such colour changes might be perceived Red, especially if the sand reflects red light more than other types, and I think although could be wrong the CO2 atmopshere would also give it a red taint if the sunlight was shinning at a particular angle, like at dawn or dusk.
As for the last picture with something in a crater, well lets look it at it like this, if you had a site you wanted to draw conspiracy buffs too, you would need a "Smoking gun" to catch their attention such as an addition to a photo through photoshop etc.
That sites Funny.
Just note the Mars lander was stuck in a position for days taking pictures.
If I took pictures all day long at one spot, at one horizon, I would notice colour changes from the morning to day and then evening to night.
Such colour changes might be perceived Red, especially if the sand reflects red light more than other types, and I think although could be wrong the CO2 atmopshere would also give it a red taint if the sunlight was shinning at a particular angle, like at dawn or dusk.
As for the last picture with something in a crater, well lets look it at it like this, if you had a site you wanted to draw conspiracy buffs too, you would need a "Smoking gun" to catch their attention such as an addition to a photo through photoshop etc.