Users Online Now:
GLP Poker Rooms
Donate To GLP
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Moontard here: THE friggin MOON is NOT RIGHT!
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 27056233:MV8yMDM4NzYyXzM0Mjc4NzMzXzc0QjU3RTQw] [quote:Kissplash:MV8yMDM4NzYyXzM0Mjc4NDM4X0UxMjExOTkx] [quote:Anonymous Coward 27056233:MV8yMDM4NzYyXzM0Mjc3OTA0XzkzMDE4NTdD] [quote:Anonymous Coward 27056233:MV8yMDM4NzYyXzM0Mjc3MTcwX0Q1M0U4NjFB] [quote:Kissplash:MV8yMDM4NzYyXzM0Mjc1OTA3X0EwMDExQzRE] Hydra have you got any pics from the eighties? I've been looking online and I can't seem to find any. I used to have pics as I had a real camera back then. Also Polaroids but I've since lost all those pics; I've moved so many times. [/quote] I'll do you one better, even prior to the 80's: http://apollomissionphotos.com/apollo14/71h225.jpg The rising moon behind the Apollo launchpad, with the moon's terminator (dividing line between night and day on the moon) completely horizontal. Yes, it's normal, yes it's just field rotation. How many of you idiots viewed the moon in a polar aligned scope the other night? I'm willing to bet, zero. I did. Guess what? It was VERTICAL in the telescope. Why? Because a polar aligned telescope is not subject to field rotation. When you see the moon rise, however, you will be viewing it with field rotation which can cause the moon to undergo an APPARENT rotation of up to 180 degrees from rising to setting. [/quote] Aww, what's the matter, no response? Didn't think so. [/quote] Um I was a bit busy here but if you want a response here it is: If you trust what the government sells you than I feel sorry for you because all they sell is BS. [/quote] Right, they're lying about field rotation. If you seriously believe that, and if you seriously believe that in the early 70's they "faked" that photo so that 40 years later I could come along and show that the moon's orientation is normal, then you're fucking insane. [quote:idiot]I believe in amateur photos...like they ones that get passed down generation to generation. You trust your i-telescope? How about your digital telescope? You trust Stellarium (I'm having real trouble with this one...I don't trust it but it's all that I have)? You trust NASA? [/quote] Yes I trust my telescope. I know how to polar align it jackass, and guess what I see when I do so... a vertical moon even when by eye it looks "horizontal" as it did this weekend! Guess what my amateur photo would have shown had I taken one of the moon this weekend? A vertical moon! Why? Because my telescope was polar aligned, as was nearly every serious amateur telescope back when the above photo was taken (telescopes used for astrophotography back then were all equatorial). [quote:idiot] You know what I trust? My eyes. And my gut. And photos that never even dreamed of being photo-shopped. That's what I believe in. [/quote] Photoshop didn't exist back then. Furthermore, there'd be no reason to fucking forge an image like that back then. [quote:idiot] And I'll tell you something else. Even with a field rotation you would still see the pictures the same today as you did then if nothing has changed. [/quote] I JUST SHOWED YOU ONE YOU FUCKING MORON! [/quote]
I just walked outside here in SO Calif and the moon is midway 10 oclock and it is getting darker from the TOP!
The MOON NEVER used to get dark from the TOP ever! WTH is goin on?
Pictures (click to insert)
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Misc Small Smilies
View All Categories
Next Page >>
Disclaimer / Copyright Info
with questions or comments about this site.
"Godlike Productions" & "GLP" are registered trademarks of Zero Point Ltd. Godlike™
Website Design Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Godlikeproductions.com
Page generated in 0.007s (5 queries)