|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Russian moon landers
On Dec 5, 11:32 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 5, 5:45 am, wrote: On Dec 4, 7:52 am, wrote: I saw images of the Soviet rovers from lunar orbit taken by Apollo CM. One with some tracks and one with both together at the meeting point. I didn't realize they had sufficient resolution, but what do I know. Only dots with shadows at the end of ground tracks. Can you post a link to such official images? Sorry no. I got it only on paper long ago. ## CrossPoint v3.12d R ## Pay no attention to the Lunatic Guthball, hes a well known kook. He can't even tell Mars and Venus apart. Hes nuts. I admit to being doubtful of any Apollo orbital pics that could have had the resolution to image Lunokhod tracks, as the altitude of the CSM and the relatively low resolution of the cameras and film used would have precluded that. The tracks were not realy resolved (left/right wheels). It was rather a distortion line but well above the grain. Oblique shot with low sun, well shadows. As we see tracks on Earth in satellite images well below real resolution I assumed same for moon too. Also, Lunokhod 2 was launched for the Moon after the last Apollo Moon flight, A17, returned to Earth. Andre Uh, thats a good argument! The whole story was short and long ago. I got several images by a friend from a book (1970s?) of a US UFO freak. The authors name may be Steckling (according Google now) and he claimed Alien Bases on the moon. Most of his image "proof" was beyond anything (lakes, cities, forest and he even saw the atmosphere of Moon!). But about 3 standed out. One was a beautifule douple ring crater I keept on file. According Steckling it was Apollo 15 image 15-12640. I saw something like once by a (.5 m) telescope too. Interesting but not alien. Next was an oblique shoot with one crater in center. A small track went in and out of the crater almost by its center. No begin and no end. That was the way the SU rovers operated on the moon. They avoided craters or always took them by center to avoid a trunover to a side. The next were two such track ends on one image and at end of each was a dot with a big shadow. There was some problem to explain it as rolling rocks (IIRC) and the tracks were of same type. So I debunked the aliens as the Soviet moon rovers. But I did not check the dates. ## CrossPoint v3.12d R ## Of one-way hard moon landings or robotic deployments should have been doable. However, with 1e18 kg of mostly fluffy and crystal dry as well as uncompacted dust and lose rock mixed with meteorite debris upon that lunar surface, would tend to make such a fly-by-rocket science deployment rather complex and extremely unlikely, especially along with the degree of double IR pesky ionic/electrostatic charge raking place, not to mention the unavoidable gamma and X-ray saturated environment. Show us something/anything from JAXA or ISRO that objectively proves otherwise. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” btw, KECK and its FL of 395 meters via its f40 secondary mirror can project our Selene/moon at better than one meter resolution. ~ BG |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Russian moon landers
On Dec 5, 8:45 am, wrote: On Dec 4, 7:52 am, wrote: I saw images of the Soviet rovers from lunar orbit taken by Apollo CM. One with some tracks and one with both together at the meeting point. I didn't realize they had sufficient resolution, but what do I know. Only dots with shadows at the end of ground tracks. Can you post a link to such official images? Sorry no. I got it only on paper long ago. Pay no attention to the Lunatic Guthball, hes a well known kook. He can't even tell Mars and Venus apart. Hes nuts. I admit to being doubtful of any Apollo orbital pics that could have had the resolution to image Lunokhod tracks, as the altitude of the CSM and the relatively low resolution of the cameras and film used would have precluded that. The tracks were not realy resolved (left/right wheels). It was rather a distortion line but well above the grain. Oblique shot with low sun, well shadows. As we see tracks on Earth in satellite images well below real resolution I assumed same for moon too. One must remain aware that the camera gear used for different purposes in Earth orbit and in lunar orbit will be quite different, with quite different resolutions. Apollo cameras were often hand held cameras, used from inside the CM. Also, even some SIM bay cameras were chosen for their usefulness in mapping, where high resolution is not the main criteria for such a choice. http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/simbaycameras.htm But, many Earth viewing spacecraft DO have missions where the resolution of the ground is a primary mission criterion. Think "spy sats"... Also, Lunokhod 2 was launched for the Moon after the last Apollo Moon flight, A17, returned to Earth. Andre Uh, thats a good argument! The whole story was short and long ago. I got several images by a friend from a book (1970s?) of a US UFO freak. The authors name may be Steckling (according Google now) and he claimed Alien Bases on the moon. Most of his image "proof" was beyond anything (lakes, cities, forest and he even saw the atmosphere of Moon!). The operative term here, to say the least, is "tainted source"... But about 3 standed out. One was a beautifule douple ring crater I keept on file. According Steckling it was Apollo 15 image 15-12640. That number returns nothing on a search. I have it in moderate quality. If someone can put it on a public site I will send it him. Check: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/images15.html You will find that the numbers look like this: AS15-85-11354 ^^ I saw something like once by a (.5 m) telescope too. Interesting but not alien. I am seriously doubtful that such an instrument could resolve any non natural event results on the Moon. I 100% agree. I talked about a small double ring crater I saw by my own eyes. But I m not sure its the same like on the image I have on file. Acording Steckling(?) "15-12640" was inside Humboldt crater and I assumed a possible link with the moon domes. Thats why I filed it. I`m not sure whether I filed the "rover track" images too. Heck, the Hubble cannot resolve a Lunar Module descent stage sitting there... http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020628.html Explanation: Can the Hubble Space Telescope take a picture that shows the Apollo lunar modules on the Moon? With its 2.4 meter diameter mirror, the smallest object that the Hubble can resolve at the Moon's distance of around 400,000 kilometers is about 80 meters across. So, from low Earth orbit even Hubble's sharp vision can not image the Apollo lunar module descent stages, at most a few meters across, left behind at the lunar landing sites. A space telescope over ten times the size of Hubble could ... or a much smaller telescope in close lunar orbit. In fact, this picture does just resolve Apollo 17's Lunar Module, Challenger, and its shadow on the cratered floor of the Taurus-Littrow valley in the Moon's Mare Serenitatis. It was taken in 1972 from the Apollo 17 Command Module, America, orbiting about 100 kilometers above the Moon's surface and covers an area about 1.1 kilometers wide. Using a web site created by Dan Durda of Southwest Research Institute, armchair astronauts can explore orbital views of this and the 5 other Apollo lunar landing sites. ------------------------ Note that that is an Apollo image, taken in lunar orbit, and the resolution is far too LOW to spot any Lunar Rover tracks. Thus, I seriously doubt that any such images could have shown similar to LR tracks made by Lunakhod 1. I vaguely remember a image of an Apollo landing site with tracks. Was in an old AW&ST. If it was not shot by the CM, then the LM maybe? To bad Henry went missing. He would know it for sure! Next was an oblique shoot with one crater in center. A small track went in and out of the crater almost by its center. No begin and no end. That was the way the SU rovers operated on the moon. They avoided craters or always took them by center to avoid a trunover to a side. The next were two such track ends on one image and at end of each was a dot with a big shadow. There was some problem to explain it as rolling rocks (IIRC) and the tracks were of same type. So I debunked the aliens as the Soviet moon rovers. But I did not check the dates. I remain a major skeptic. For the above stated reasons. Andre ## CrossPoint v3.12d R ## |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Russian moon landers
On Dec 5, 4:44*pm, wrote:
On Dec 5, 8:45 am, wrote: On Dec 4, 7:52 am, wrote: I saw images of the Soviet rovers from lunar orbit taken by Apollo CM. One with some tracks and one with both together at the meeting point. I didn't realize they had sufficient resolution, but what do I know. Only dots with shadows at the end of ground tracks. Can you post a link to such official images? Sorry no. I got it only on paper long ago. Pay no attention to the Lunatic Guthball, hes a well known kook. He can't even tell Mars and Venus apart. Hes nuts. I admit to being doubtful of any Apollo orbital pics that could have had the resolution to image Lunokhod tracks, as the altitude of the CSM and the relatively low resolution of the cameras and film used would have precluded that. The tracks were not realy resolved (left/right wheels). It was rather a distortion line but well above the grain. Oblique shot with low sun, well shadows. As we see tracks on Earth in satellite images well below real resolution I assumed same for moon too. One must remain aware that the camera gear used for different purposes in Earth orbit and in lunar orbit will be quite different, with quite different resolutions. Apollo cameras were often hand held cameras, used from inside the CM. Also, even some SIM bay cameras were chosen for their usefulness in mapping, where high resolution is not the main criteria for such a choice. http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/simbaycameras.htm But, many Earth viewing spacecraft DO have missions where the resolution of the ground is a primary mission criterion. Think "spy sats"... Also, Lunokhod 2 was launched for the Moon after the last Apollo Moon flight, A17, returned to Earth. Andre Uh, thats a good argument! The whole story was short and long ago. I got several images by a friend from a book (1970s?) of a US UFO freak. The authors name may be Steckling (according Google now) and he claimed Alien Bases on the moon. Most of his image "proof" was beyond anything (lakes, cities, forest and he even saw the atmosphere of Moon!). The operative term here, to say the least, is "tainted source"... But about 3 standed out. One was a beautifule douple ring crater I keept on file. According Steckling it was Apollo 15 image 15-12640. That number returns nothing on a search. I have it in moderate quality. If someone can put it on a public site I will send it him. That doesn't allow anyone to verify that it IS an Apollo NASA picture. Until and unless YOU provide the *correct* NASA ID number, this claim of yours and/or Stecking's remains 100% unsubstantiated. Verifyable evidence is the key phrase. If Steckling used a pic that cannot be shown to be an actual Apollo picture (Not to mention the serious hit to any credibility for him pushing lunacies such as Lunar "alien bases"...), any and all claims that it is such a picture are not believable. The record of hoaxers in this field is such that the only reasonable position is a high degree of skepticism for such claims, until and unless *specific and verifyable evidence* if offered up for such a claim. Check:http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/images15.html You will find that the numbers look like this: AS15-85-11354 ^^ Note that what I wrote shows that the alleged NASA number from your very loopy "source" does NOT match actual NASA Apollo image numbering systems. That would lead to a reasonable conclusion that his claim of that being a NASA Apollo picture is simply false. I saw something like once by a (.5 m) telescope too. Interesting but not alien. I am seriously doubtful that such an instrument could resolve any non natural event results on the Moon. I 100% agree. I talked about a small double ring crater I saw by my own eyes. Well, thats 100% irrelevant to any claims about seeing any rover tracks on the Moon, because not even the Hubble could see such a thing from the Earth. But I m not sure its the same like on the image I have on file. Acording Steckling(?) "15-12640" was inside Humboldt crater and I assumed a possible link with the moon domes. Thats why I filed it. I`m not sure whether I filed the "rover track" images too. IOW, you have NO evidence in support of any of this. Thats not good for your credibility. And, citing a chap who claimed that there are "alien bases" on the Moon kicks that cred way, way down, too. Heck, the Hubble cannot resolve a Lunar Module descent stage sitting there... http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020628.html Explanation: *Can the Hubble Space Telescope take a picture that shows the Apollo lunar modules on the Moon? With its 2.4 meter diameter mirror, the smallest object that the Hubble can resolve at the Moon's distance of around 400,000 kilometers is about 80 meters across. So, from low Earth orbit even Hubble's sharp vision can not image the Apollo lunar module descent stages, at most a few meters across, left behind at the lunar landing sites. A space telescope over ten times the size of Hubble could ... or a much smaller telescope in close lunar orbit. In fact, this picture does just resolve Apollo 17's Lunar Module, Challenger, and its shadow on the cratered floor of the Taurus-Littrow valley in the Moon's Mare Serenitatis. It was taken in 1972 from the Apollo 17 Command Module, America, orbiting about 100 kilometers above the Moon's surface and covers an area about 1.1 kilometers wide. Using a web site created by Dan Durda of Southwest Research Institute, armchair astronauts can explore orbital views of this and the 5 other Apollo lunar landing sites. ------------------------ Note that that is an Apollo image, taken in lunar orbit, and the resolution is far too LOW to spot any Lunar Rover tracks. Thus, I seriously doubt that any such images could have shown similar to LR tracks made by Lunakhod 1. I vaguely remember a image of an Apollo landing site with tracks. My Google image searches turn up no such images. Was in an old AW&ST. If it was not shot by the CM, then the LM maybe? Perhaps. If it was shot from the LM ascent stage, then it would have to have been taken in the first minute after liftoff. To bad Henry went missing. He would know it for sure! Yes, he would likely be able to settle this issue, but I would hazard the estimate that his answer would not contradict anything that I have said. Next was an oblique shoot with one crater in center. A small track went in and out of the crater almost by its center. No begin and no end. That was the way the SU rovers operated on the moon. They avoided craters or always took them by center to avoid a trunover to a side. The next were two such track ends on one image and at end of each was a dot with a big shadow. There was some problem to explain it as rolling rocks (IIRC) and the tracks were of same type. So I debunked the aliens as the Soviet moon rovers. But I did not check the dates. I remain a major skeptic. For the above stated reasons. And, still. Andre |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Russian moon landers
On Dec 5, 7:42*pm, OM wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:07:30 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven wrote: I vaguely remember a image of an Apollo landing site with tracks. My Google image searches turn up no such images. ...Did you look under "Cheese Pizza"? That's where you find all of Guthball's Ma...er..."Venus" images. Oh well, I doubt that even Google image searches can turn up but a fraction of the delusions that the Guthball suffers from. I was addressing the fellow who wrote the first quoted line above. He may be mis-remembering a thing or two, but is otherwise rational, a statement thats never been accurate when used about the Guthball. g Andre |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Russian moon landers
Andre Lieven wrote: I was addressing the fellow who wrote the first quoted line above. He may be mis-remembering a thing or two, but is otherwise rational, a statement thats never been accurate when used about the Guthball. I remember ascent video from a LM showing visible tracks from the LRV. Pat |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Russian moon landers
Andre Lieven wrote: I was addressing the fellow who wrote the first quoted line above. He may be mis-remembering a thing or two, but is otherwise rational, a statement thats never been accurate when used about the Guthball. Lookie what I just found: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.ascent1.jpg Not just LRV tracks, but footprints. Pat Pat |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Russian moon landers
On Dec 6, 12:24*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote: I was addressing the fellow who wrote the first quoted line above. He may be mis-remembering a thing or two, but is otherwise rational, a statement thats never been accurate when used about the Guthball. I remember ascent video from a LM showing visible tracks from the LRV. So do I. But I doubt that there are very many still photographs of such a low altitude in-boost flight view. And, the OP was asking about pictures taken from the CSM in lunar orbit. 100 km or so up. So LM low alitiude ascent views are not relevent to that question. Andre |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Russian moon landers
Andre Lieven wrote: So do I. But I doubt that there are very many still photographs of such a low altitude in-boost flight view. In case you didn't catch it: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.ascent1.jpg Pat |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Russian moon landers
On Dec 6, 6:12 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote: So do I. But I doubt that there are very many still photographs of such a low altitude in-boost flight view. In case you didn't catch it:http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.ascent1.jpg Pat Apollo equipment was sent to the physically dark and dusty surface of our moon, just not along with any crew. ~ BG |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Russian moon landers
On Dec 5, 9:28 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote: I was addressing the fellow who wrote the first quoted line above. He may be mis-remembering a thing or two, but is otherwise rational, a statement thats never been accurate when used about the Guthball. Lookie what I just found:http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.ascent1.jpg Not just LRV tracks, but footprints. Pat Of zero dust, nothing ever ionic/electrostatic charged, always of thin dust and extremely good clumping, 0.65 albedo, near zero mineralogy color/hue saturation, though in this ascent1.jpg offering a good enough indication of whatever UV and its secondary/recoil bluish affect, otherwise zilch worth of gamma ot X-rays and never the least bit hot from the double dosage of IR. In fact, the lander itself was that of a medium gray coated aluminum (obviously for better photographic reasons). ~ BG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Russian Moon probe | Pat Flannery | History | 28 | June 18th 06 07:01 PM |
New Russian Moon probe | Pat Flannery | Space Science Misc | 8 | June 10th 06 07:35 PM |
Russian Moon Module in New York Museum? | Mitch | History | 0 | April 10th 06 08:56 PM |
seeing the moon landers shadow by telescope!! | Hayley | UK Astronomy | 4 | February 26th 06 08:16 AM |
seeing moon landers | John | Misc | 22 | October 3rd 03 02:18 PM |