the small chunk below the meteor sample in the first pic
I could just contort my arm through a crack in the perspex security cover and hook a tiny chunk with my fingernail.
The second pic is my first day of cover moon landing
Doesnt it seem a little strange that noone in history has ever taken any pictures of the moon landing sites and the hardware etc from orbit or from earth?
No. Why should it be strange?
Quote:
I might be wrong, but my point is that if Kaguya cant see the Apollo landing sites, couldnt Hubble? or something else?
No. There is no telescope on (or above) Earth that has the resolution required to image the Apollo LM descent stage, the largest ‘object’ left on the Moon. An Earth based telescope would have to be on the order of 100m (or so, I don’t have the link to the calculations on hand – it’s a ball-park estimate). The Hubble can image something about the size of a football stadium on the Moon.
Why cant any shots be taken of this gear, we know where it is dont we?
Indeed we do, but like I said, it’s just too small.
Quote:
and a moon buggy tracking all over the moon surface for miles would surely leave tracks that while they may not be 10 metres in width, would certainly be more than 10 metres in length and therefore visible to a camera that can record details such as that.
Like you said, they are rather long, but reallllly thin. They won’t be picked up.
Quote:
And even if the resolution is no bigger than 10 metres, you may not get very many details of what is there, but you should get an idea that something IS there.
Images proving that ‘something’ is there have already been taken. It has been done three times actually. Once by the Clementine orbiter of the Apollo 15 landing site and then twice with Kaguya – one of the Apollo 11 site and one of the Apollo 15 site again. They don’t resolve any of the equipment, just the general disturbance of the landing site.
Especially when the sun's light at low altitude could cast a shadow MUCH longer than 10 metres. That would be able to be recorded....
The shadow might be able to be recorded. But it would still be like only a pixel in size. We already have such images as taken from the Apollo CSM from some missions. I guess they don't count though.
Quote:
Therefore.....why no photos from Kaguya of the Apollo Landing sites?
For the reasons stated above.
Last edited by Chrissyo; 25-07-2008 at 12:12 AM.
Reason: Added a website
Regarding aliens. Yep. I reckon there is life elsewhere but we are extremely unlikely to bump into it, or it bump into us. Not only do we have to be in the same place, and others have already mentioned the probability of that, we have to be at the same time. Consider a 13.5 billion year old universe, or even a 4.5 billion year old planet. There have only been hominids for several million years, homo sapiens for perhaps 100,000 years, the technology to look into space for 500 years, radio astronomy for ca. 70 years and space flight for 50 years. That is a vanishingly small window of opportunity.
Regarding the moon landing. Suggesting that was faked is to suggest a cover up that would make the supposed alien cover ups look trivial. Apart from all the obvious stuff like the rocket launches, pictures etc let's look at the material returned from the moon. That has been the subject of 1000s of papers by 10,000s of scientists and the analyses show that the materials is different to terrestrial material. I produce scientific data for a living and I know many other instrument technicians. One common trait is that we pride ourselves on producing correct numbers. I really bridle at the suggestion that there is a large number of scientists out there who would be willing to fudge results as part of a scam. In fact there are cases in the medical field where unscrupulous scientists were dobbed in by their own technicians.
And if that isn't enough, how did the corner reflectors that the laser range finders regularly hit get there?
Leaving all that aside, there is one thing that convinces me they were there. If they had not have been ON the moon, do you really think the Russians would not have noticed? They'd have been jumping all over the place in the media with the news. Remember it was the 'space race', so there was a competitor and they were watching. Very closely.
Not being able to see the 'leftover's today is a very different thing to seeing the landing and takeoff back then. It would have been noticeable to them.
"Whilst opinions are free and everyone has one, for someone who spends a lot of time looking at other galaxies, and knowing how many planets are within our own galaxy... don't you think there is more than a 'slim' chance, that quite a few of the thousands of other galaxies out there have planets, and that a fair few of them would be able to sustain life, and of that few, at least a couple WOULD sustain life... It seems incredibly likely to me..."
Well, I can't share your opinion but hey, it's just an opinion -- like yours. I might well be wrong and if ET lands I'll be more than happy to meet them and I'm sure we'd (The Earthlings) benefit from the relationship. But I just don't think it is going to happen. This is the way I look at it.
It is true that there are a hell of a lot of stars in the Milky Way. The latest estimates place it somewhere between 200 and 300 billion with the higher end figure somewhat more likely. But among those stars, I think there is a (comparatively) very, very small number that are suitable candidates that could develop life, let alone intelligent life, let alone intelligent life that is more (much more) advanced than our own and capable of traversing inter-stellar space in reasonable time-frames and happens to coincide with the time when there happens to be intelligent life emerging on this planet.
The variety of stars in the Universe is simply extraordinary. But you need a star that has a mass small enough that it won't burn-out quickly, but needs to be big enough to make a habitable zone far enough from the star that any Earth-like planet doesn't end up with tidally locked rotation. Probably 99.9% + stars have no hope of fitting the bill. Too big, too small or are in the wrong environment. Realistically you need a G0 to G3 star. Even at F8, you've slashed the main-sequence life of the star to about 4 billion years -- not long enough you'd think. In the Milky Way, there are maybe 5,000,000 that fit that bill reasonably well. Then it has to have the correct metal content so that all the elements for life and the elements that make up terrestrial planets are present -- slash a zero off. It has to be in the right part of the galaxy -- to close to the centre and too much going on to be habitable. Too far out -- not enough metal -- take off 80% and were down to 100,000.
You can basically discount a very large majority if not virtually all the binaries. We're down to 40,000.
You can then take out nearly all the systems that have giant planets orbiting close to the host star -- these form way out and migrate in wreaking destruction in their path. From the systems we've found so far, these seem very, very common. Knock out maybe 80% (I think this is a conservative estimate) of that 40,000 leaving 8,000. Then of that 8,000 how many will have an terrestrial sized planets, lets say 1/2 -- were down to 4,000. Of those with terrestrial planets how many will fall neatly into the habitable zone at the right time? Lets say 20% and were down to 800.
So at least on my reckoning 800 Earth-like planets out there in the Milky Way. How many will actually have life -- and personally I don't think like is easy to just start spontaneously. Lets say 1/2 (again I think this is very conservative) -- we're down to 400.
How many develop advanced multi-cellular life -- lets say 5% (again conservative I think) and were at 20 stars. Of that 20 how many manage to avoid the manifold pit-falls like comet-strikes, close supernovae, Gamma-ry bursts etc etc go on to harbour intelligent, self-aware life that are capable of using tools and solving complex problems -- lets say 25% and were left with 5 Earths. Of that 5 with intelligent life how many will go on to solve the riddles of physics and master interstellar travel? One or two at most I'd think and were likely to be one of those two within a few hundred years -- leaving exactly 1 other and they have to find us.
Not a big figure now, and in all likelihood they have to be reasonably close-by (say 10,000 ly) to us to visit -- even with extremely advanced tech. But hey, its just my opinion. I might be wrong. I'd love to meet "ET", I just don't think its going to happen. And tie it in with the topic of the thread I don't think it has happened. Again, maybe I'm wrong -- I'd welcome solid evidence of, or proof to the contrary.
Standing in the way of that of course, as we understand the laws of physics at present light-speed travel is a big no-no. Maybe we'll find a way around that, maybe not -- at present I personally don't think we will find a way around it.
As for proof that we went to the Moon -- there is abundant proof. Just look at the rocks for a start ... The Russians never blew the cover (and they would of had they had even the slightest suspicions) , the retro-reflectors on the surface and the 1000+ people who would have to have been in on the conspiracy and all kept their trap's shut for almost 40 years. It is much easier to imagine we did indeed go to the Moon. The evidence is overwhelming. A super-dooper high-res photo would only show a dot -- no more. Pretty easy to doctor up so why bother. The proof we went is convincing.
Very well explained, I must admit,it was a bit of a rant I was doing, but Chris' dissection of the arguments is one of the best explanations of my rant I have seen.
In a statement, a spokesman said: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.
'Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinions on this issue.'
Good on Ya Dr stick it up for censorship
maybe someone should slip his medication into that drink.
LOL, why does he need medication?
He says he received inside information based on government information.
Are you saying he didn't?
He's not saying aliens stole his grand-momma's cookies, or raped his dog.
I think any experienced astronomer who hasn't seen a UFO needs to get out more, or is just ridiculously unlucky. I've seen stuff that wasn't a plane/space junk, or satelite, or Venus lol.
Very well explained, I must admit,it was a bit of a rant I was doing, but Chris' dissection of the arguments is one of the best explanations of my rant I have seen.
Thanks for the clarifications.
Cheers
Chris
No problem, glad I could help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrampianStars
In a statement, a spokesman said: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.
'Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinions on this issue.'
Good on Ya Dr stick it up for censorship
… what censorship? Mitchell is making unfounded claims without evidence. NASA replies simply with “we do not share his opinions on this issue” and that constitutes censorship?
Something to think about – if this IS a big secret government cover-up and Mitchell isn’t just talking complete and utter rubbish … why is he being allowed to speak at all (and remember, he’s been making these claims for years – it isn’t a one off thing)?
Things just don't add up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overlord
He says he received inside information based on government information.
Are you saying he didn't?
I’m saying that he’s not providing any evidence to back up what he’s saying. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. “He says” is not evidence. Enough said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overlord
I think any experienced astronomer who hasn't seen a UFO needs to get out more, or is just ridiculously unlucky.
I’ve never seen anything that I can’t explain yet. Though, I assume that I’m far from what you would define as ‘experienced’. Let me ask you something though – when you say “I've seen stuff that wasn't a plane/space junk, or satelite, or Venus lol” are you actually trying to say “I’ve seen an alien spacecraft”? If so, how do you know?
Others have explained most of the fundamentals brought up in this thread
very well.
When it all boils down to it we are all just human. We are all fallible.
Some of the most gruelling physical and mental examinations to select
astronauts still fall down.
Remember the astronaut that drove across USA in a nappy due to some
love tryst with a fellow astronaut.
I remember reading once that out of most of the astronauts who did the
moon shot, a large percentage found it so overwhelming an experience
that they 'got religion' or it made them completely re-assess their
philosophies in life.
Rational thinking, highly intelligent fighter pilots came back thinking that
maybe they had it all wrong.
Charlie Duke I think became a minister.
Many became alcoholics.
Can you blame them...just imagine going through that experience?
Yeah I reckon we went to the moon.
And it annoys me, and it must break those guys hearts every time they
see a high ratings TV show about moon landing conspiracy theories.
And figures like 80% of the world's population think they didn't even
do it!
"I think any experienced astronomer who hasn't seen a UFO needs to get out more, or is just ridiculously unlucky. I've seen stuff that wasn't a plane/space junk, or satelite, or Venus lol."
Ridiculously unlucky? Well, I observe regularly with four other amateurs who could be described variously as somewhere between quite to extremely experienced. Between us we have well over 100 years of skywatching experience and it seems all five of us are in this ridiculously unlucky category. Either that or we are all looking the wrong way or as you say "we need to get out more ..."
Hmmm, longest ever moon walk at 9 hours 17 minutes hey?
Can anyone spell "radiation poisoning"?
Nut Job. Gotta love the quote " Reading the papers recently, it's been happening quite a bit."
The National Enquirer said it was true so there!
Cheers
Chris
Hi Chris,
I don't understand the radiation poison comment. I'm sorry you say on one hand you believed we walked on the Moon and then act like the conspiracy, Moon Hoax, guys. The reality is if the Moon walk was faked we have been fooled by the greatest coverup in history. I think the only mistake NASA has made is they haven't treated these idiots seriously. I've seen some of these Moon hoax documentaries and I can poke holes in their arguments - NASA's reaction has been, we know we went so there, and have no interest in getting down in the gutter with these hoax people. Well they should have! To the majority of the world's population it is history and they have no first hand experience. If it's on TV it has to be true!?
Re the lack of recent photographic evidence of landing sites. If the landing were faked - faking some fuzzy, so called, landing sites would be a breeze!
I think the bottom line is if the landings were faked, I'll believe anything is a coverup - UFOs, Roswell, Arthur C Clarke was an alien and writing about his real life experiences, Men in Black is based on a real story, Contact is really Sagan's autobiography from a previous life, the universe is a drop of water in some alien's toilet on a higher plane of reality - hey you name - I'll believe!
As for Ed Mitchell - getting old is a terrible thing - missing your medication is worse!
If you had risked your life to do what he did, and some idiot came up to you and said you were a LIAR, wouldn't you belt them too?
Balls the size of watermelons.
Another anecdote stuck in my head from the 80s....
John Young, veteran of several space missions, first ever Space shuttle pilot. On his right Robert Crippen, rookie, first ever mission to space.
During the last few seconds before liftoff John Young's heart rate was in the
70s or 80 beats per minute...Crippens double that.
Balls......nothing but the highest respect for these guys...and girls!
Ridiculously unlucky? Well, I observe regularly with four other amateurs who could be described variously as somewhere between quite to extremely experienced. Between us we have well over 100 years of skywatching experience and it seems all five of us are in this ridiculously unlucky category. Either that or we are all looking the wrong way or as you say "we need to get out more ..."
Best,
Les D
I'll add another 35 years experience, including a lot of time camping, and I've yet to see a UFO. I agree I need to get out more but not for that reason! Hopefully tonight.
.... One or two at most I'd think and were likely to be one of those two within a few hundred years -- leaving exactly 1 other and they have to find us.
Best,
Les D
Les,
Interesting calculations but the answer seems just a bit too convenient. Sorry but it looks contrived. I'm certainly not suggesting space is teeming with life (far less that we have been visited) but only 1-2 in our galaxy strikes me as too low. Of course even only 1 intelligent life form per galaxy means there are plenty in the universe.
We should also consider the possibilities for other life forms. I'm pretty confident they won't look like us at all. Why two-fold symmetry? Even on Earth there are cases of five-fold and eight-fold symmetry. Why bones? Why a central brain? Indeed, why protein? Asimov once speculated on the possible chemical basis for life at different temperatures and in different chemical environments (eg with ammonia rather than water as the common solvent). I forget the details but he did point out that the base unit needs to be basically stable at the ambient temperature but not inert. If the base unit is not stable then the organism can't exist but if it is too unreactive then life processes stop. For example, at lower temperatures he suggested lipid-based life forms may exist (yep, blobs of intelligent fat) I forget the suggestions for higher temperatures. This of course would widen the habitable zone in your calculations and so increase to possible number of life forms.
On a more serious note however, theres no reason to believe his claims to be false or true really.. its his word against that of the exact agencies that he claims are/have been covering it up...
I personally believe there HAS to be something else out there, of equal or greater intelligence to ourselves. The universe is a ridiculously large place, and to think its all just for us is perhaps a bit narrow minded...
Something tells me however that the little grey men flying faster than light to travel such extensive distances have better things to do that crash land in new mexico...
Yep what Alex said. i couldnt have said that better myself :2thumbs :
stick it up for censorship
..the message is the same though...
