In 1954 British Astronomer Val Firsoff reported viewing what he believed was a red sunset near Mare Imbrium. He believed the effect was caused by the presence of water and carbon dioxide molecules suspended in a fairly dense atmosphere. 16 years later the Apollo 11 mission returned to earth with this photograph:
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/6667.jpg)
It is AS11-44-6667 taken July 21st at the beginning of Translunar Coast on the return trip from the moon. The photo shows a nearly full moon with a distinct reddening at the terminator similar to what Firsoff claimed he saw 15 years earlier.
When enhanced with increased saturation the red color is even more striking.
(http://s17.postimage.org/9d938rain/6667a.jpg)
It should be noted that As11-44-6667 is often presented as a whitewashed disk devoid of most of the color information, more similar to a black and white photograph rather than a color photo. This one is one of the better prints.
For comparison purposes AS11-44-6692 is presented. A view of earths' terminator during a red sunrise.
(http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/6692.jpg)
A number of years ago I showed those photos to Edgar Mitchell at his own forum. He never said I was right or wrong. He just called it good work.
http://www.holloworbs.com/Lunar_Atmosphere.htm
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/6667.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/6692.jpg
Interesting, but if it was an atmosphere, shouldn't it be always present?
Or is it some kind of intermittent atmosphere that only appears sometimes?
PS: the right side of the photo is redder than the left side, so the effect on the Moon is a little less pronounced than it looks on the photo.
NASA cut my hotlinks, oh well, still have the important one. That photo is actualy flipped compared to how we see the moon in the sky. The red limb would actualy be a sunrise rather than a sunset. Some have suggested that a transient lunar atmosphere follows the terminator as it rotates around the moon. The Apollo science packages left on the moon did find some evidence for that.
When people calculate escape veliocities for gasses on the moon they use the daytime high of 107C. And true, no light gas could stay there at that temperature. The temperature on the night side is -150C, at that temperature some light gasses and vapors could stay. At the terminator the temperature would be close to -150. At sunrise the gases would be lying low in depressions, valleys and the bottoms of craters. They would begin to heat, expand and rise. The solar wind, blowing almost near paralell to the ground at sunrise, would propel them back behind the terminator where they would cool again and fall back to the -150C lunar surface and wait for sunrise to pick them up and move them again. This process would likely continue for hours after sunrise as deep craters and depressions would remain darkened and -150C cold for some time after sunrise. Only when the sunlight began to reach inside them would the gasses they held be driven out and blown to the dark side of the terminator by the combination of heating and solar wind.
So at the terminator there would be like a leap frog game going on. Gasses sit in the cold dark, the light comes and blows them back into the dark again, over and over and over all the way around the entire lunar surface. The proposed light gas atmosphere, if it does indeed exist, would not be like our earth atmosphere, enveloping the entire planet 360 degrees around. It would exist in a narrow band 5 or 10 degrees either side of the terminator and always moving. Or, the atmosphere exists over the entire dark side and is constantly being pushed from both ends by the sunrise and sunset terminators so that we never see it because it's always in the dark.
As for why it is not always visible, again if it even exists, I can only guess it would have to do with a host of factors from lunar terrain to f-stop camera settings to our atmosphere's color filtering quality. No color we ever see in earth based telescopes is ever as vivid and bright as what we get from Hubble. That red coloration may be only barely perceptable at the best of times with earth based scopes. Firsoff and others got lucky and saw it on a few occasions. Maybe everything has to be just right to see it. Perhaps if we had more space based photos we would see it more often.
Hi Shank,
Great thread, and may have some kind of explanations of the hows this could be, but not absolutely positive it is the answer. Seems as if your knowledge of these events is a bit more than I , but here, This is a video that was created buy our esteemed Sgt.RockNRoll, he has quite the software set for 3D rendering and analogy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiD5Tp7U944
This is one video that the Sgt. had rendered, but has some pretty astonishing stuff in it that serves credence to your inquiry of the lunar surface and possible atmospheric implications.
Too view more of these types of videos, go here: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=443.0 (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=443.0)
Very amazing stuff, as Armap already knows..."Enjoy!"
1Worldwatcher
Quote from: ArMaP on December 04, 2012, 11:58:55 PM
Interesting, but if it was an atmosphere, shouldn't it be always present?
Well it is always there but not always visible :P Same way that the skies on Mars are clear when there is no dust storm. Since there is little water vapor on the moon and the atmosphere is not dense I would imagine we only see it under certain conditions :D
AS15 88 12013(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS15_88_12013/Apollo15postTEI.png)
And then NASA has shown us air glow pictures dating back to Surveyor as well as Sunset/Sunrise rays that Astronauts sketched and astronomers have seen from Earth
:D
Sunset rays Surveyor 1
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/Surveyor_1/survey1.gif)
Apollo 15 about one minute prior to sunrise on July 31, 1971, is seen just beyond the lunar horizon. The bright object on the opposite side of the frame is the planet Mercury. The bright star near the frame center is Regulas, and the lesser stars form the head of the constellation Leo. Mercury is approximately 28 degrees from the center of the sun. the solar coronal streamers, therefore, appear to extend about eight degrees from the sun's center."
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Atmosphere/Apo15cor.jpg)
Oh wait WHAT? Stars seen from the moon by APOLLO? Say it ain't so :P
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Astronauts/rays.jpg)
On the left are lunar "twilight rays" sketched by Apollo 17 astronauts;
on the right are terrestrial crepuscular rays photographed by author Trudy E. Bell.NASA calls them "MOON FOUNTAINS" :o
::)
Quote from: zorgon on December 05, 2012, 09:52:32 AM
Well it is always there but not always visible :P Same way that the skies on Mars are clear when there is no dust storm. Since there is little water vapor on the moon and the atmosphere is not dense I would imagine we only see it under certain conditions :D
So, what makes it visible?
QuoteAS15 88 12013
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/AS15_88_12013/Apollo15postTEI.png)
It looks like that photo shows more the brighter areas "bleeding" into the dark sky than anything else, as there is no "glow" in the darker areas.
QuoteAnd then NASA has shown us air glow pictures dating back to Surveyor as well as Sunset/Sunrise rays that Astronauts sketched and astronomers have seen from Earth
Yep, I know those. :)
QuoteOh wait WHAT? Stars seen from the moon by APOLLO? Say it ain't so :P
It is, I have posted that (and other) Apollo photos that show stars, all taken when the Sun is not visible, as expected. :)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Atmosphere/Apo15cor.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Astronauts/rays.jpg)
On the left are lunar "twilight rays" sketched by Apollo 17 astronauts;
on the right are terrestrial crepuscular rays photographed by author Trudy E. Bell.
ArMaP, do you know how this can be explained without an atmosphere? You normally have an answer when it comes to images.
Were the astronauts lying when they said they could not see stars after Apollo 11?
I took this pic in 2010, not sure if blue is common on not.
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy68/mikeybandb/PICT0165.jpg)
Quote from: Pimander on December 05, 2012, 02:43:35 PM
ArMaP, do you know how this can be explained without an atmosphere? You normally have an answer when it comes to images.
I don't think an atmosphere is necessary for that to happen, what is needed is something where the light can be reflected. Dust rising high enough would have the same effect.
QuoteWere the astronauts lying when they said they could not see stars after Apollo 11?
Probably not, as the photos with the stars all have signs of a long exposure time (the stars look like lines instead of points), so it's possible that they weren't able to see them, although I also don't understand why they wouldn't see them when in the dark.
Quote from: mikeybandb on December 05, 2012, 08:02:43 PM
I took this pic in 2010, not sure if blue is common on not.
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy68/mikeybandb/PICT0165.jpg)
It looks like colour aberration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration). Do you have more photos taken with that camera?
Quote from: ArMaP on December 05, 2012, 09:35:58 PM
Dust rising high enough would have the same effect.
Yes like NASA's MOON STORMS :D
but then they keep telling us (especially with the Apollo Missions) that dust on the moon doesn't stir up like it does in an atmosphere. So if they use that excuse to explain no dust from Apollo then try to switch that to account for MOON FOUNTAINS...
well
Never
A Straight
Answer has it all covered :P
Quote from: ArMaP on December 05, 2012, 09:35:58 PM
Probably not, as the photos with the stars all have signs of a long exposure time (the stars look like lines instead of points), so it's possible that they weren't able to see them, although I also don't understand why they wouldn't see them when in the dark.
AS10-32-4810(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Loofo_Files/AS10-32-4810_stars2.png)
And NASA SAYS:"If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. ..."
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Stars/solsticesun_lodriguss.jpg)
So there is the sun in full daylight and all those marvelous stars which is what we would see from Earth if there was no atmosphere to scatter light
So WHY was this not the same case on the Moon? How could they have missed such a spectacular display... unless
::)
QuoteWell it is always there but not always visible Same way that the skies on Mars are clear when there is no dust storm. Since there is little water vapor on the moon and the atmosphere is not dense I would imagine we only see it under certain conditions
BINGO !Right on the nail Z....
I guess the human species has much to Understand...
Quote from: zorgon on December 05, 2012, 10:48:14 PM
AS10-32-4810
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Loofo_Files/AS10-32-4810_stars2.png)
Are those supposed to be stars? They look more like dust or scratches on the photo than stars.
Quote
So there is the sun in full daylight and all those marvelous stars which is what we would see from Earth if there was no atmosphere to scatter light
So WHY was this not the same case on the Moon? How could they have missed such a spectacular display... unless
::)
Unless things are not as the theory says. :)
But, as I said on my previous post, they should have seen the stars at least when on the "night side".
Quote from: ArMaP on December 05, 2012, 09:39:45 PM
It looks like colour aberration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration). Do you have more photos taken with that camera?
I do, let move to my pc in my mancave.
will post them soon.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 05, 2012, 09:39:45 PM
It looks like colour aberration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration). Do you have more photos taken with that camera?
Here's 2 more...
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy68/mikeybandb/Moon-01-1.gif)
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy68/mikeybandb/024.jpg)
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy68/mikeybandb/023.jpg)
Looking at those two photos I think it's really colour aberration, we can see a slightly magenta fringe on the opposite side of the blue fringe.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 06, 2012, 09:18:15 AM
Looking at those two photos I think it's really colour aberration, we can see a slightly magenta fringe on the opposite side of the blue fringe.
In this photo I would have to agree with you, in that colour aberration is present, but that does
NOT mean there isn't an atmosphere on the Moon. ;D
John Lear makes some interesting points regarding this.
Such a presence of an atmosphere does
NOT have to engulf the entire moon.
Mist (water vapour) doesn't engulf our Planet, yet settles in valleys and over rives, seas etc. under the right conditions.
An atmosphere may exist in deep valleys or low altitude planes craters etc. contrary to most thinking, that an atmosphere has to engulf the entire moon :D
Quote from: The Matrix Traveller on December 06, 2012, 09:52:59 AM
In this photo I would have to agree with you, in that colour aberration is present, but that does NOT mean there isn't an atmosphere on the Moon. ;D
Obviously, only if it was a photo where an atmosphere was clearly visible would that photo be relevant to the presence or not of an atmosphere.
QuoteMist (water vapour) doesn't engulf our Planet, yet settles in valleys and over rives, seas etc. under the right conditions.
Mist is an atmospheric phenomenon, so the fact that it has a localized appearance is irrelevant to the existence of a partial atmosphere.
QuoteAn atmosphere may exist in deep valleys or low altitude planes craters etc. contrary to most thinking, that an atmosphere has to engulf the entire moon :D
The Moon does have an atmosphere, but extremely rarefied when compared with the Earth's atmosphere, so I guess that deep craters and valleys have a somewhat denser atmosphere.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 06, 2012, 12:37:17 AM
Unless things are not as the theory says. :)
But, as I said on my previous post, they should have seen the stars at least when on the "night side".
Or Aldrin and Armstrong were told what they were allowed to say because they either never went to the Moon or were not free to report everything as they saw it for some unknown reason (classified).
I simply do not believe that you need to think about or debate whether you saw stars. I remember one of the astronauts trying to correct Armstrong (I think it was) about whether he could see stars - like you would forget! :o
I wish I knew the answers but it does not add up.
Quote from: Pimander on December 06, 2012, 01:59:38 PM
Or Aldrin and Armstrong were told what they were allowed to say because they either never went to the Moon or were not free to report everything as they saw it for some unknown reason (classified).
I simply do not believe that you need to think about or debate whether you saw stars. I remember one of the astronauts trying to correct Armstrong (I think it was) about whether he could see stars - like you would forget! :o
I wish I knew the answers but it does not add up.
I'm not sure whether they went to the moon or not.
All I know is if I had just returned from the most historic "Road Trip" in the history of mankind,
not you or anyone else could wipe the grin from my face. What I see on the face's of
these three, is guilt,fear,disgust,shame,and the need to get the hell out of that conference.
Press Conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI
Quote from: Pimander on December 06, 2012, 01:59:38 PM
Or Aldrin and Armstrong were told what they were allowed to say because they either never went to the Moon or were not free to report everything as they saw it for some unknown reason (classified).
From those two I think the last one (they were not allowed to say what they wanted and nobody told them what to say if someone asked that question) is the most likely, as if they didn't go to the Moon they could say what they wanted as long as it was compatible with what the previous astronauts have said.
QuoteI simply do not believe that you need to think about or debate whether you saw stars. I remember one of the astronauts trying to correct Armstrong (I think it was) about whether he could see stars - like you would forget! :o
Yes, I remember that one. :)
Quote from: mikeybandb on December 06, 2012, 04:30:52 PM
All I know is if I had just returned from the most historic "Road Trip" in the history of mankind,
not you or anyone else could wipe the grin from my face.
I have seen many people saying that and posting this video, but they hadn't "just returned", you can see on photos when they really had just returned that they were all smiling.
PS: I don't think this is was "the most historic 'Road Trip'", other voyages had a much bigger impact.
Quote from: mikeybandb on December 06, 2012, 03:11:59 AM
Here's 2 more...
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy68/mikeybandb/Moon-01-1.gif)
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy68/mikeybandb/024.jpg)
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy68/mikeybandb/023.jpg)
Keith Laney is the kind of guy to ask about stuff like that. He knows photos and photography, nobody doubts that. He'd solve that riddle in about 2 seconds.
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on December 05, 2012, 04:26:15 AM
Hi Shank,
Great thread, and may have some kind of explanations of the hows this could be, but not absolutely positive it is the answer. Seems as if your knowledge of these events is a bit more than I , but here, This is a video that was created buy our esteemed Sgt.RockNRoll, he has quite the software set for 3D rendering and analogy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiD5Tp7U944
Man is that a mountain of stuff in there. That one streamer coming off the surface intrigues me. Firsoff said he saw one of those through his scope. He thought it was an auroral streamer, northern lights essentially. Can't have those without an atmosphere.
I'm not really a big surface artifact guy myself. Not that I don't believe those things can't or don't exist and that nobody should bother looking for them. The problem is, when you find them. You still never seem to be able to say for sure what it is, or if it's anything at all.
Case in point:
(http://s9.postimage.org/q6k3u1vun/Ahriman.jpg)
The head of what once was a statue at Tranquility Base? Or is it just a stone? It's probably a little bigger than life size. It can also be seen in the frame before this one. I found that maybe 7 years ago. Though I would find it hard to believe nobody ever noticed it before I did. Anyway, it bears a striking resemblence to a bust of Ahriman(Lucifer) that was sculpted by Rudolph Steiner who was a pretty famous philosopher and mystic who straddled the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. Steiner's Ahriman is in the other box.
But what can I really really tell you about it? I can't say it's just a stone, I can't say it's a statue, I can't say it's Lucifer. All I can do is show it to you and let you wonder about it for yourself. In the end, neither of us knows any more than when we started.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 06, 2012, 01:55:40 PM
The Moon does have an atmosphere, but extremely rarefied when compared with the Earth's atmosphere, so I guess that deep craters and valleys have a somewhat denser atmosphere.
I'm not so sure it really is all that rarified. Here's a couple lines from the Apollo 11 Command Module voice recorder transcript. None of this went over the radio. It was off the cockpit voice recorder. They had just done a urine dump and were watching the drops fly away out the window.
03 08 24 42 CMP It'd be kind of interesting to see some of this
dump go on straight from polar orbit. Wonder how
long it's going to take before it impacts?
03 08 24 53 CDR It obviously - is not really in polar orbit if it's
going off - going off that way. Yes, it's inclined
to the small angle.
03 08 25 03 CMP Sure looks like it.
03 08 25 04 CDR It's going straight out there through. That's
real funny.
03 08 25 13 LMP Son of a gun, that one's got a littl e - little
curve on it.
03 08 25 23 CMP Would you believe that, Neil? One went out and
curved around like that. Can you explain that?
03 08 25 32 CDR I guess it Just glanced off another particle or
something.
03 08 25 35 CMP Oh, no, no, no, no; if it's curved.
03 08 25 40 CDR tt had a little bubble in it that came to the
surface and went kapoom and - -
03 08 25 23 I/VIP No - -
03 08 25 44 CMP
There's atmospheric drag up here.CDR is Armstrong
LMP is Aldrin
CMP is Collins
That's off page 98 of the transcript. I picked up my copy at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, or at least I thought so. I just took a quick peek and never saw it. That's not to say it's no longer there though. Nothing is all that easy to find over there. I've got an article on that site somewhere and I have no Idea where it is. Eric Jones sent me a link to it when he put it up, but I lost it and I don't know where it is now.
Collins seems to think there is an atmosphere, one thick enough to cause a drop of liquid to change velocity at about 60 miles up. Or was he just playing Devil's advocate? Collins is known to be a little bit of a joker. But nobody laughed or told him to F-off. So who knows. I'd love to ask him about it one day.
Quote from: Shank on December 06, 2012, 10:15:12 PMI picked up my copy at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, or at least I thought so.
I got mine from here (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/apollo11.htm). :)
QuoteCollins seems to think there is an atmosphere, one thick enough to cause a drop of liquid to change velocity at about 60 miles up. Or was he just playing Devil's advocate? Collins is known to be a little bit of a joker. But nobody laughed or told him to F-off. So who knows. I'd love to ask him about it one day.
Would an atmosphere affect only one drop and not the others?
Quote from: ArMaP on December 06, 2012, 08:38:25 PM
From those two I think the last one (they were not allowed to say what they wanted and nobody told them what to say if someone asked that question) is the most likely,
In other words, very good pilots don't always make good public relations people.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 07, 2012, 12:38:31 AM
I got mine from here (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/apollo11.htm). :)
Would an atmosphere affect only one drop and not the others?
I don't know. I suppose size, shape, mass and surface area exposed to atmospheric drag might have something to do with it. A bullet goes pretty straight in the wind, a baloon doesn't. I would suspect Collins wasn't actualy looking out the window at it to see what was happening. He just offered a possibility to explain the behaviour. The action of a piss drop is not really the important thing. The important thing is that one of the three of them appeared to believe it might be tied to the possible existence of an atmosphere which at that time was believed to be non-existent, officialy anyway.
Why such a thought would enter his mind is odd. Maybe he was just yanking the chains of the other two. Only Collins would know the answer to that.
Shank,
Could you post some pictures not of the Moon from that camera is more what I think ArMaP wanted to see. The additional pictures you have posted above will not show whether the effect is "colour bleed" as they are also the moon.... A picture of a bright star or Venus would help so we can see whether there is bleed on the other pictures.
Quote from: Shank on December 10, 2012, 10:05:51 PM
The important thing is that one of the three of them appeared to believe it might be tied to the possible existence of an atmosphere which at that time was believed to be non-existent, officialy anyway.
If there was enough atmosphere to affect just one drop when they were not expecting any that would slow down the module and they would have noticed much sooner.
Quote from: Pimander on December 10, 2012, 10:46:53 PM
Shank,
Could you post some pictures not of the Moon from that camera is more what I think ArMaP wanted to see. The additional pictures you have posted above will not show whether the effect is "colour bleed" as they are also the moon.... A picture of a bright star or Venus would help so we can see whether there is bleed on the other pictures.
I meant Mikey here.
Sorry Shank. Doh!
Quote from: ArMaP on December 06, 2012, 08:38:25 PM
From those two I think the last one (they were not allowed to say what they wanted and nobody told them what to say if someone asked that question) is the most likely, as if they didn't go to the Moon they could say what they wanted as long as it was compatible with what the previous astronauts have said.
Yes, I remember that one. :)
You don't see these guys look scared shitless Armap??
Quote from: watchZEITGEISTnow on December 11, 2012, 12:09:43 PM
You don't see these guys look scared poopless Armap??
No, they don't look scared to me, they look more tired and bored than scared.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 11, 2012, 01:54:23 AM
If there was enough atmosphere to affect just one drop when they were not expecting any that would slow down the module and they would have noticed much sooner.
I don't know if you can trust the stated times for anything very much. At one point, revolution 16, Mike Collins placed a call to Houston 17 seconds before AOS. That was 17 seconds before Collins had line of sight with earth. It should have been physicaly impossible for that transmission to reach earth. AOS was supposed to be 106:11:24. Colins placed his call at 106:11:07. Considering it took Collins somewhere around a minute to allign his antennas at AOS, it was really closer to a minute too soon.
Some might suggest that's just a problem with the transcript or the tapes. It is a known fact that assigned times are not all that accurate. I myself found the transcript to be about 14 seconds fast at one point just prior to that rev. 16 AOS call. So now we're talking a minute and maybe 10 or 15 seconds fast. But I don't think poor transcription is the problem here for one reason I'll try my best to explain.
All during the mission Houston would call up the next AOS and LOS times prior to them occuring so Collins always had the numbers. The first two revs. Houston called the times up down to the second. Those were accuracy checks. The astronauts were supposed to be looking out the window and watching for earthrise, and checking it against the clock, the predicted time. If the earth rose late they were at a lower altitute and moving slower than expected. If earth rose earlier over the lunar horizon they would know they were higher and faster. They did that twice, for Lunar Orbit Insertion, and the circularization burn that came near the end of rev 1. The next 12 times Houston only called up the times to the minute. There were no further checks to be made, they were just for Collins' information so he knew when he could roughly expect to lose or gain radio contact.
The next two orbits after Colins called in early, Houston began to read the times accurate to seconds again. There was no reason to do that because there was no check to be performed. That was their way of telling Collins, you be careful next time. You don't call us before the time that's written down in your flight plan. The second time the AOS was read up, Collins got the message and claimed to miss the transmission and stated he'd get the next AOS time off the flight plan. That's what they wanted to hear. Then Houston resumed giving AOS/LOS to the minute and Collins never called in early again.
So what i'm saying is, drag should have an effect orbit times. But you can't trust the times they gave us. It shows the futility of this whole looking for lunar anomalies thing. Questions only lead to more questions and never any answers.
Quote from: watchZEITGEISTnow on December 11, 2012, 12:09:43 PM
You don't see these guys look scared poopless Armap??
Nobody really knows what happened before that confrence. The three of them could have had a bad flight, a big arguement just before they walked out, somebody pissed in somebody's cornflakes. Maybe they were just getting sick and tired of answering all the same questions, eating restaurant food, being away from home. They did that worldwide publicity tour for about 6 months if memory serves me correct. None of them enjoyed it. The three of them were test pilots, not public relations officers. I wouldn't have wanted to do it either.
Quote from: Shank on December 12, 2012, 02:01:26 AM
So what i'm saying is, drag should have an effect orbit times. But you can't trust the times they gave us. It shows the futility of this whole looking for lunar anomalies thing. Questions only lead to more questions and never any answers.
Well you are here so you must be interested. ::)
Regarding the Apollo 11 astronaut press conference.... This is one of the things that keeps me interested/suspicious about Apollo 11. I am not normally inclined to take that kind of talk seriously but in this case I do. Something about the way those guys acted just feels wrong to me.
I have no idea what the answer is. Was it just a PR exercise? Did they get asked not to report everything? I wish I knew.
I think the part about not reporting everything is right. I'll give you an example:
Armstrong walked around with the Apollo Lunar Surface Closeup Camera (ALSCC) for about a half an hour while he wasn't too busy doing too much of anything. He was more or less just watching Aldrin while he was supposed to be taking photos with that camera. It was a super high resolution, high magnification camera, took stereo photos of a square inch of surface, something like that. You can see individual dust particles in them. Collins asked Armstrong when they had docked the LM and the CM together after rendevous how any photos he took with that camera. Armstrong said 30 or 40, that's about 1 a minute which is reasonable.
When NASA released those 3D photos to the public, it was 16 and a half frames. Meaning they held back some 15 or 25 of those closeup photos. That or Armstrong was terribly mistaken which I doubt he was. I had old fim cameras way back when. When you thought you took 15 photos it was more likely that you took 25 or 30. It always shocked me how fast my film went. Rarely ever the other way around.
There were things on that roll they didn't want us to see.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 11, 2012, 10:20:27 PM
No, they don't look scared to me, they look more tired and bored than scared.
Have you studied body language at all?
They are spooked, and their body language says that...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WDCRgVgJ-yI/TuFxAZENYhI/AAAAAAAAAlU/a6tv3aIC4IQ/s400/Ear+Scratch+-+Jon+Corzine+-+New+Jersey+-+MF+Global.jpg)
Self-touching fits into a class of nonverbal behaviors that are known as Manipulators, Adaptors or Pacifiers (MAPs). MAPs are significant body language signals of anxiety. When the area being touched involves the ear, eye, nose, mouth, cheek or anterior (front) neck - there's an even higher correlation with deception. The remainder of the head and neck have a lower correlation with lying.
Jon Corzine, former Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, U.S. Senator and Governor of New Jersey testified before the U.S. House Agriculture Committee today. He resigned on November 4th of this year from MF Global, where he was CEO and Chairman since March 2010. MF Global declared bankruptcy on October 31, 2011 - the eighth largest in U.S. history. The company is under investigation by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Among other things, $1.2 billion is missing. Hmmm... http://www.bodylanguagesuccess.com/2011/12/negotitation-body-language-secret-339.html
Look at Collins repeatedly put his hand to his ear during the conference.
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.206812.1314084084!/img/httpImage/alg-mcchrystal-expression-jpg.jpg)
The farther the lips are rolled in, the more intense the emotion. General McChrystal is deeply ashamed in this photo. Compare with the facial expressions of Armstrong at many points in the press conference. http://liveonearth.livejournal.com/864852.html
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.popeater.com/media/2010/02/tigertile.jpg)
Tiger's body language spoke to the immense shame and humiliation he felt while having to publicly admit his wrongdoing. Do the astronauts look like they are shameful? http://www.popeater.com/2010/02/19/tiger-woods-apology-body-language/
(http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/we-1-good-afternoon-1.png)
As former Rep. Anthony Weiner let everyone know he was resigning, his monotone voice and body language said that he was insincere in his apology, He often pursed his lips as we see in this photo, which indicated that he really did not want to say that he was saying. This is precisely what we see from, in particular, Armstrong. Why would the astronauts not want to say what they were saying at the press conference? http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/weiners-body-language-and-voice-show-hes-in-denial-and-feels-shame-as-he-faces-hecklers-during-resignation-speech/
(http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/we-2-lip-lick.png?w=426)
As he spoke he had a case of dry Cotton Mouth which indicated that he was very nervous and distressed about what he was doing in being forced to do- resign. Were the astronauts forced to say what they did? http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/weiners-body-language-and-voice-show-hes-in-denial-and-feels-shame-as-he-faces-hecklers-during-resignation-speech/
As I say, the body language of the astronauts is very unusual for a triumphant return after being the first to achieve something truly amazing. What is the explanation?
Sir Patrick Moore asked them about the stars :D
Patrick Moore asks the alleged Apollo 11 crew could you actually see the stars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0
Quote from: watchZEITGEISTnow on December 12, 2012, 11:58:03 AM
Have you studied body language at all?
As much as I have studied English, by personal observation. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on December 12, 2012, 10:18:25 PM
As much as I have studied English, by personal observation. :)
Are you ever wrong Armap?
(off-topic) for example I bet you know nothing about Quantum Healing - because you cant "prove" it exists right?
I've seen ET when i was 6. Ive met ETs in Quantum healing regressions. Ive met ETs on DMT the one time I took it.
They are as real as you (and I dont even know if you are real, as you are only type on a forum).
Armap - THERE IS SO MUCH YOU WILL NEVER KNOW because you don't allow yourself to be open to it.
I love you Armap, but you do NOT know everything. Remember that matey. :) peace!
Quote from: zorgon on December 12, 2012, 06:58:15 PM
Sir Patrick Moore asked them about the stars :D
Patrick Moore asks the alleged Apollo 11 crew could you actually see the stars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0
That video is ODD
So he didn't see anything without using the Lunar Optics ?
I want Lunar Optics ASAP :o
Quote from: watchZEITGEISTnow on December 13, 2012, 05:47:53 AM
Are you ever wrong Armap?
Several times each day, why, aren't we all? :)
Quote(off-topic) for example I bet you know nothing about Quantum Healing - because you cant "prove" it exists right?
Wrong, I know nothing about Quantum Healing because it's the first time I ever read about it, not because I can't "prove" it.
QuoteI've seen ET when i was 6. Ive met ETs in Quantum healing regressions. Ive met ETs on DMT the one time I took it.
From where were those ETs?
QuoteThey are as real as you (and I dont even know if you are real, as you are only type on a forum).
The things we imagine are also real in our imaginations. ;)
QuoteArmap - THERE IS SO MUCH YOU WILL NEVER KNOW because you don't allow yourself to be open to it.
Why do you think I don't allow myself to be open to it? I am open to
everything, I just think some things are more likely to be true than others based on the information I have and I am always ready to change my opinion based on new information.
What's wrong with that?
QuoteI love you Armap, but you do NOT know everything. Remember that matey. :) peace!
I do remember that, several times each day. :)
That's why I am always reading about several topics, some related to my work (now I am reading a book about programming securing web sites), some related to other topics that I like that are somewhat related to my work (like imaging and photography, for example) some just because I like the topics (like UFOs and paranormal phenomena or completely different things, like learning Japanese).
I use to say that learning is the only thing we can do until the moment we die, and maybe even after. :)
PS: you should never assume you know a person just because you read some things he/she wrote on the Internet. ;)
Quote from: Somamech on December 13, 2012, 06:27:38 PM
That video is ODD
So he didn't see anything without using the Lunar Optics ?
I want Lunar Optics ASAP :o
Very, very, Strange to say the least.
Having to try and remember seeing Stars and having to confirm between each other is even stranger.
Hell on such a voyage
HOW could you forget to the point of having to confirm between your crew.
It sounded like they were unsure of what they were told to say.... LOL.
Seeing the Universe from outside the Earth's Atmosphere is totally different. Guess why the need for the Hubble telescope ?
Possibly more seen than from Earth... LOL.
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQLcLikg4VShx34V7tlO4l215aC9EVwamJULjrlw6FJ7R_fE45n)
So is the Hubble telescope looking only at a
BLACK Universe ? LOL.
NOT today,
NOT tomorrow nor any other day or night. LOL.