Image Related To:
NASA:Milky Way Road Trip
By: Tangerine 
In search of planets and the summer Milky Way, astronomer Tunç Tezel took an evening road trip. Last Saturday, after driving the winding road up Uludag, a mountain near Bursa,...
Cell phones use report code: 
This day in 1968, Astronaut William Anders took this photograph during historic Apollo 8 mission,the first manned voyage to moon. This photo was given the name "Earthrise".The photograph was taken from lunar orbit with a Hasselblad camera. Initially, before finding a suitable 70mm color film, Anders took a black and white photo of the scene, with the earth still being far closer to the horizon.
Post a Comment Comments: 6
Like I said...Apollo hoax believers are some of the most unimaginative
and unoriginal people I've ever known. It's really quite sad.
Why do they keep repeating the same old ludicrous assertions about the
lack of stars in the daytime sky and simple perspective producing
non-parallel shadows? I mean, they're so easy to refute with simple
reasoning that they're downright dull. Can't they come up with some
good ones all by themselves? Or do these guys really have to hang on
each new book and film from the boorish and dishonest Bart Sibrel to
start hawking some fresh howlers?
Hoax believers apparently assume that just because they're incapable
of independent, critical thought then the rest of us must be as well.
How else could they accuse us basing our acceptance of the fact of
Apollo on blind faith in NASA? Faith applies to questions with no
objective facts or evidence to help answer them, questions like "does
God exist?" Faith certainly isn't relevant to major historical events
involving hundreds of thousands of participants and witnesses and an
amazingly detailed record of documents, recordings, photographs and
artifacts.
Now I can certainly understand how the hoax believers might need
"faith" to believe that NASA went to the moon in the late 1960s. With
their near-total lack of general scientific understanding and of basic
reasoning abilities, they can't make heads or tails of the historical
record. They're unable to distinguish between the reality of Apollo
and the fantasy of, say, "2001: A Space Odyssey". They seriously argue
that the Apollo TV coverage was directed by Stanley Kubrick, the
director of "2001"!
As someone very interested in science education, I actually see a
missed opportunity in many of the Apollo hoax claims. Many contain
kernels of interesting scientific questions. If the hoax believers
weren't so intellectually dishonest and unable to listen, they could
actually learn something!
For example, the answer to the question of why stars aren't visible in
lunar surface photographs can provide a good insight into the scale of
the universe. If distant stars are just like our sun (and some are far
brighter), then the fact that they don't register on photographs of
the sunlit lunar surface says something about how incredibly distant
those stars must be!
The question of why shadows often appear nonparallel can be explained
with geometry. It is also easily demonstrated on earth, showing there
is nothing special about the lunar surface.
The question of why the lunar module engine plumes are invisible and
don't produce craters can lead to a discussion of how rockets work,
the relationship between force, mass and acceleration, the chemical
reactions in these particular rockets, and how gases behave in a
vacuum differently than in the earth's atmosphere.
And so on. But learning is impossible unless one is interested in
learning, and there is no surer way to not learn than to assume that
you can't and therefore to assume that everything everyone tells you
is a lie because you haven't learned to tell the difference.
and unoriginal people I've ever known. It's really quite sad.
Why do they keep repeating the same old ludicrous assertions about the
lack of stars in the daytime sky and simple perspective producing
non-parallel shadows? I mean, they're so easy to refute with simple
reasoning that they're downright dull. Can't they come up with some
good ones all by themselves? Or do these guys really have to hang on
each new book and film from the boorish and dishonest Bart Sibrel to
start hawking some fresh howlers?
Hoax believers apparently assume that just because they're incapable
of independent, critical thought then the rest of us must be as well.
How else could they accuse us basing our acceptance of the fact of
Apollo on blind faith in NASA? Faith applies to questions with no
objective facts or evidence to help answer them, questions like "does
God exist?" Faith certainly isn't relevant to major historical events
involving hundreds of thousands of participants and witnesses and an
amazingly detailed record of documents, recordings, photographs and
artifacts.
Now I can certainly understand how the hoax believers might need
"faith" to believe that NASA went to the moon in the late 1960s. With
their near-total lack of general scientific understanding and of basic
reasoning abilities, they can't make heads or tails of the historical
record. They're unable to distinguish between the reality of Apollo
and the fantasy of, say, "2001: A Space Odyssey". They seriously argue
that the Apollo TV coverage was directed by Stanley Kubrick, the
director of "2001"!
As someone very interested in science education, I actually see a
missed opportunity in many of the Apollo hoax claims. Many contain
kernels of interesting scientific questions. If the hoax believers
weren't so intellectually dishonest and unable to listen, they could
actually learn something!
For example, the answer to the question of why stars aren't visible in
lunar surface photographs can provide a good insight into the scale of
the universe. If distant stars are just like our sun (and some are far
brighter), then the fact that they don't register on photographs of
the sunlit lunar surface says something about how incredibly distant
those stars must be!
The question of why shadows often appear nonparallel can be explained
with geometry. It is also easily demonstrated on earth, showing there
is nothing special about the lunar surface.
The question of why the lunar module engine plumes are invisible and
don't produce craters can lead to a discussion of how rockets work,
the relationship between force, mass and acceleration, the chemical
reactions in these particular rockets, and how gases behave in a
vacuum differently than in the earth's atmosphere.
And so on. But learning is impossible unless one is interested in
learning, and there is no surer way to not learn than to assume that
you can't and therefore to assume that everything everyone tells you
is a lie because you haven't learned to tell the difference.
Chronic severe constipation may be life threatening. If you place so much *faith* in NASA (aka Never Any Straight Answers) perhaps you should examine their own footage, and their timestamp: http://www.moonmovie.com/
Or perhaps you can explain how the Apollo crews survived the Van Allen Radiation belts, going and coming:
http://www.astronautix.com/astros/vanallen.htm
17July1962 - Nuclear Blasts to Clear Inner Radiation Belts for Apollo?
http://www.conspiracyworld.com/index0035.htm
Bart Sibrel responds to Michael Medved's *USA Today* article.
Despite my original childhood wonder at the *idea* of what NASA purported to be doing, I never overcame my pre-NASA education about such annoying facts as the Van Allen Radiation Belts and how they effected the Apollo program. As an Explorer Scout sponsored by the FAA, I had an opportunity to discuss some of my reservations about Apollo with a senior Rockwell Engineer/Executive. When asked if I had any questions, I went into Van Allen, doubts about how the Rover was stowed aboard & how the load was balanced, yet the Rover appeared fully assembled and functional "on the moon(?)" in very short order, and my doubts about the Apollo life support systems, particularly with regard to heat exchange in a continuously sunlit vacuum. He laughed and said "You're getting ahead of yourself... the real question you should ask *first* is how the Saturn V lifted the Lunar Mission Payload when the flight-certified Beta-series engines couldn't produce enough thrust to lift the payload and the Alpha-series engines weren't flight certified because they kept exploding..."! He wouldn't go into it any further than that and said he would deny everything, if quoted, but told me it was nice speaking to someone so young (in 1971) WHO WAS CAPABLE OF CRITICAL THINKING! Everyone is entitled to *BELIEVE* whatever they like, but, Belief is based on FAITH and I prefer what can be proved. Believing in NASA and Apollo has no effect whatsoever on the facts, evidence, and *reality*.
BravoLima
Or perhaps you can explain how the Apollo crews survived the Van Allen Radiation belts, going and coming:
http://www.astronautix.com/astros/vanallen.htm
17July1962 - Nuclear Blasts to Clear Inner Radiation Belts for Apollo?
http://www.conspiracyworld.com/index0035.htm
Bart Sibrel responds to Michael Medved's *USA Today* article.
Despite my original childhood wonder at the *idea* of what NASA purported to be doing, I never overcame my pre-NASA education about such annoying facts as the Van Allen Radiation Belts and how they effected the Apollo program. As an Explorer Scout sponsored by the FAA, I had an opportunity to discuss some of my reservations about Apollo with a senior Rockwell Engineer/Executive. When asked if I had any questions, I went into Van Allen, doubts about how the Rover was stowed aboard & how the load was balanced, yet the Rover appeared fully assembled and functional "on the moon(?)" in very short order, and my doubts about the Apollo life support systems, particularly with regard to heat exchange in a continuously sunlit vacuum. He laughed and said "You're getting ahead of yourself... the real question you should ask *first* is how the Saturn V lifted the Lunar Mission Payload when the flight-certified Beta-series engines couldn't produce enough thrust to lift the payload and the Alpha-series engines weren't flight certified because they kept exploding..."! He wouldn't go into it any further than that and said he would deny everything, if quoted, but told me it was nice speaking to someone so young (in 1971) WHO WAS CAPABLE OF CRITICAL THINKING! Everyone is entitled to *BELIEVE* whatever they like, but, Belief is based on FAITH and I prefer what can be proved. Believing in NASA and Apollo has no effect whatsoever on the facts, evidence, and *reality*.
BravoLima
I've encountered a lot of the hoax believers and I actually pity them. You might think their conspiracy theories are imaginative, but these are actually some of the most unimaginative people I've ever known. They simply can't imagine that we humans could accomplish such an amazing feat.
A lot of people criticized Apollo when we had so many problems on the ground: the Vietnam War, race riots, poverty, assassinations and so forth. But those things are actually why we NEEDED Apollo at that time; it showed us that we can occasionally transcend those things and fulfill, at least briefly, a dream that's probably older than the human species.
A lot of people criticized Apollo when we had so many problems on the ground: the Vietnam War, race riots, poverty, assassinations and so forth. But those things are actually why we NEEDED Apollo at that time; it showed us that we can occasionally transcend those things and fulfill, at least briefly, a dream that's probably older than the human species.
For those who believe the lunar program was a hoax - which some polls show is over 50% of the American public (sigh) - look at the space around the Earth in this photograph. Do you see any stars??? According to hoax "theorists", this proves that this image is a fake. But wait! That ignores exposure time. Anyone who has owned a manual camera knows that a photo taken in sunlight requires an exposure time around 1/1000th of a second. And anyone who has ever tried to photograph the stars knows that it requires a time exposure of many minutes or all you get is....... black sky! The subjects in this photo, the lunar surface and the Earth, are certainly being lit by the sun. (Oh, and the flag moves because an astronaut wiggles the pole and steps out of the frame, which is plain to see by watching the entire video clip, easily available from NASA.)
Site Links
Site Topics
Contributions
- Report Your News
- Add your voice and contribute via your cellphone - check out how to Report News via Your Cellphone
- Blog Widget
- Widget for Blog Owner
