Skip to comments.
California Woman Who Tried to Sell a Moon Rock Wins Round Against NASA
San Jose Mercury News ^
| April 14, 2017
| Liam Truchard
Posted on 04/14/2017 9:25:23 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Joann Davis had a moon rock. Yes, it was real. A gift, she said, from Neil Armstrong to her late husband.
She also had an ill son and the Lake Elsinore resident wanted to help with his medical care. So she contacted NASA about her intention to sell it.
That led to a nightmare situation on May 19, 2011, when Davis stood in the parking lot of a Dennys restaurant in pants soaked in urine, answering questions from a federal agent about a rice-sized piece of moon.
He kept saying, You will be going to federal court, you will be going to federal jail, Davis said Friday.
An indignant federal appeals court on Thursday criticized Davis detention by NASA agent Norman Conley in the Dennys parking lot, calling it unreasonably prolonged and unnecessarily degrading.
Conley detained Davis even though he knew she was nearly 75 years old, had urinated in her pants during the sting, had reached out to NASA herself and was having financial problems, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The court was determining whether a federal agent could be sued for wrongful detention under these circumstances, said Davis Redlands-based lawyer, Peter Schlueter. And their decision was absolutely, yes.
Lunar material gathered on the Apollo missions is considered government property, and her email prompted an investigation that brought six armed officers to the Dennys that day in a sting operation to seize the rock.
Instead of asking Davis to surrender the rock to NASA, Conley organized a sting operation involving six armed officers to forcibly seize a lucite paperweight containing a moon rock the size of a rice grain from an elderly grandmother, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: armstrong; astronaut; biggovernment; goon; goonrock; humiliation; moon; moonlanding; moonrock; nasa; neilarmstrong; normanconley; obamasfault; oonrock; paperweight; poonrock; rock; salloonrock; sting; zealot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-103 next last
To: rx; coloradan
There are Wikipedia articles that give a thorough treatment to the subject (articles that appear to be well-sourced):
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
3rd-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings
Regarding the 'C' on the rock, here's a brief treatment that is expanded on in my first link:
xxxx
8. The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching 'C's on a rock and on the ground. These may be labeled studio props.
-
- The "C"-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections and do not appear in the original film from the camera. It has been suggested that the "C" is a coiled hair.[99][101]
|
Original AS16-107-17445 photograph
|
|
Original AS16-107-17446 photograph
|
|
Close-up of later generation prints of AS16-107-17446
|
|
61
posted on
04/15/2017 8:45:31 AM PDT
by
Ultra Sonic 007
(Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.)
To: coloradan; Ultra Sonic 007
The backdrops were apparently considered reusable, even though no Apollo mission visited any of the previously-visited Apollo sites.
was easier to do that that everything involved with actually successfully landing six times in a row without a major failure:
62
posted on
04/15/2017 8:49:03 AM PDT
by
rx
(Truth Will Out!)
To: Ultra Sonic 007
...and that's why NASA felt the appropriateness to doctor the image, to remove the "coiled hair" without contemporaneously telling anyone about it? They clearly were
inclined to do the fakery and
executed the fakery, in bald contrast to what your youtube guy said was not possible.
Fail.
How many more times did they do things like this, yet haven't told us?
63
posted on
04/15/2017 8:55:25 AM PDT
by
rx
(Truth Will Out!)
To: rx
I'm just going to laugh at all of this. JUST last night I attended an event with Apollo era mission control folks. I know these people and have since childhood. I know what they went through and overcame, directly. And fyi, EVERY mission was risky and had problems.
Hell, every Space Shuttle mission had problems (they just didn't get discussed in the media). and I know THAT part from direct personal experience as I followed in my father's footsteps for a while and was part of the program. YOU KNOW NOTHING.
To: Ultra Sonic 007
How convenient to say the "coiled hair" didn't occur on the original, to which no one else would have access!
The enlargement below shows it could not have been a coiled hair, as the thickness of the C-tracing seems to vary through the curves, where a hair would not.
The preponderance of evidences does not favor NASA at all!
65
posted on
04/15/2017 9:01:45 AM PDT
by
rx
(Truth Will Out!)
To: StolarStorm
Boy, that really slayed me with your facts and showed everyone how you’re willing, apparently on the basis of personal acquaintances, to believe such an “argument” should overcome any logical counter-argument!
66
posted on
04/15/2017 9:04:53 AM PDT
by
rx
(Truth Will Out!)
To: rx
To: rx
If someone insisted that the sky is green instead of blue, would you waste your time trying to find a way to explain it to them?
To: rx
So in your particular scenario, given how glaringly obvious the ‘C’-artifact is on certain production runs of that photo, you mean to argue that it was not caught before being released?
Because the whole idea of a Moon Landing hoax involves mitigating or removing anything that would indicate that it was a fake, yes?
Then, if the intent was to sell the hoax, why release something that is so glaringly obvious?
69
posted on
04/15/2017 9:08:23 AM PDT
by
Ultra Sonic 007
(Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.)
To: nickcarraway
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, Lois Lerner and Susan Rice walk free.
70
posted on
04/15/2017 9:10:44 AM PDT
by
Kickass Conservative
(The way Liberals carry on about Deportation, you would think "Mexico" was Spanish for "Auschwitz".)
To: rx
The "reused backgrounds" objection is also answered (at least as regards Apollo 15, but I imagine a similar argument holds for Apollo 17):
xxxx
There are issues with Apollo 15 photos having identical backgrounds.
AS15-82-11057: View of
Apollo 15 Lunar Module from the nearby
ALSEP site (Station 8) during the third
EVA.
[27]
AS15-82-11082: Later photo with same hills in the background near
Hadley Rille (Station 9) during the third EVA, approximately 1.4 km west of the Lunar Module.
[27]
-
- Detailed comparison of the backgrounds said to be identical in fact show significant changes in the relative positions of the hills that are consistent with the claimed locations that the images were taken from. Parallax effects clearly demonstrate that the images were taken from widely different locations around the landing sites.
-
- Claims that the appearance of the background is identical while the foreground changes (for example, from a boulder strewn crater to the Lunar Module) are trivially explained when the images were taken from nearby locations, akin to seeing distant mountains appearing the same on Earth from locations that are hundreds of feet apart showing different foreground items.
-
- Furthermore, as there is only an extremely tenuous atmosphere on the Moon, very distant objects will appear clearer and closer to the human eye. What appears as nearby hills in some photographs, are actually mountains several kilometers high and some 1020 kilometers away. Changes in such very distant backgrounds are quite subtle, and can be mistaken for no change at all.
-
- As the Moon is also much smaller than the Earth, the horizon is significantly nearer in photographs than Earthbound observers are used to seeing (an eye 1.7 m above completely flat ground will see the horizon 4.7 km away on Earth, but only 2.4 km away on the Moon). This can lead to confusing interpretations of the images.[28]
-
- One specific case is debunked in "Who Mourns For Apollo?" by Mike Bara.[29]
-
-
- While it is true that there is no haze to assist in judging distance, the maximum distance to the horizon is much closer than on Earth, due to the smaller size of the Moon. This limits the scope for the same objects to appear in different shots taken at different locations.
-
-
- For a flat area of the Moon, the distance to horizon ≈ sqrt ( 2 * radius of Moon * height of observer )[30]
-
-
- The Moon's average radius is 1,080 miles, and assuming generously that the astronauts held the camera 5 feet, or 0.000947 miles above the surface (the cameras are shown in photographs as having no viewfinder, and the astronauts seem to hold them in the centre of their chest, so five feet is generous).
-
-
- These figures give distance = sqrt (2 * 1080 * 0.000947) = 2 miles.
-
-
- It seems that this would be far enough for terrain features to appear in shots taken from locations some distance apart, but perhaps not "miles apart." Without having specific information as to which shots and the terrain they are purported to contain, there is no definite answer.
71
posted on
04/15/2017 9:12:18 AM PDT
by
Ultra Sonic 007
(Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.)
To: StolarStorm
Whatever you do-—Don’t mention chem trails!!!!
72
posted on
04/15/2017 9:13:48 AM PDT
by
Imnidiot
(This space for Rent)
To: SaveFerris
Your friend is very wise.
Don't tell anyone.
To: rx
Regarding
the issue with the equipment landing and the apparent lack of a 'crater':
xxxx
1. The Lunar Modules made no blast craters or any sign of dust scatter.[124]
-
- No crater should be expected. The 10,000-pound thrust Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing.[125] The Lunar Module was no longer quickly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the lander's own weight, which was lessened by the Moon's gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI).[126] Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads, and the pressure drops very quickly. Rocket exhaust gasses expand much more quickly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To lessen this, rocket engines made for vacuums have longer bells than those made for use on Earth, but they still cannot stop this spreading. The lander's exhaust gasses, therefore, expanded quickly well beyond the landing site. The descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders spoke of its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photos do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".[127] A blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 lander using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.[128]
2. The second stage of the launch rocket and/or the Lunar Module ascent stage made no visible flame.
-
- The Lunar Modules used Aerozine 50 (fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) propellants, chosen for simplicity and reliability; they ignite hypergolically upon contact without the need for a spark. These propellants produce a nearly transparent exhaust.[129] The same fuel was used by the core of the American Titan II rocket. The transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very quickly as they leave the engine nozzle (see above), further lessening their visibility. Finally, rocket engines often run "rich" to slow internal corrosion. On Earth, the excess fuel burns in contact with atmospheric oxygen, enhancing the visible flame. This cannot happen in a vacuum.
-
Apollo 17 LM leaving the Moon; rocket exhaust visible only briefly
-
Apollo 8 launch through the first stage separation
-
Exhaust flame may not be visible outside the atmosphere, as in this photo. Rocket engines are the dark structures at the bottom center
-
The launch of a Titan II, burning hypergolic Aerozine-50/N2O4, 430,000 pounds-force (1.9 MN) of thrust. Note the near-transparency of the exhaust, even in air (water is being sprayed up from below)
-
Atlas uses non-hypergolic kerosene (RP-1) fuel which gives a bright and very visible exhaust, 340,000 lbf (1.5 MN) of thrust
-
Bright flame from first stage of the Saturn V, burning RP-1
3. The Lunar Modules weighed 17 tons and made no mark on the Moondust, yet footprints can be seen beside them.[130]
-
- On the surface of the Earth, Apollo 11's fueled and crewed Lunar Module, Eagle, would have weighed approximately 17 short tons (15,300 kg). On the surface of the Moon, however, after expending fuel and oxidizer on her descent from lunar orbit, the lander weighed about 2,698 pounds (1,224 kg).[131] The astronauts were much lighter than the lander, but their boots were much smaller than the lander's approximately 3-foot (91 cm) diameter footpads.[132] Pressure (or force per unit area) rather than mass determines the amount of regolith compression. In some photos, the footpads did press into the regolith, especially when they moved sideways at touchdown. (The bearing pressure under Apollo 11's footpads, with the lander being about 44 times the weight of an EVA-configured astronaut, would have been of similar magnitude to the bearing pressure exerted by the astronauts' boots.)[133]
74
posted on
04/15/2017 9:16:52 AM PDT
by
Ultra Sonic 007
(Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.)
To: Stentor
75
posted on
04/15/2017 9:25:26 AM PDT
by
TheCipher
(Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. Mark Twain)
To: rx
My concern is that if someone doesn’t understand that one can see more of the earth the farther away one is, that stars don’t show up in pictures that are correctly exposed for daylight levels, that perspective makes lines that are actually parallel (such as shadows cast by parallel sunlight) look like they converge (or, like they point in ‘different directions’) and that the objects in the shadow of one’s head are all “full” (in the sense of the full moon) and therefore brighter than other objects elsewhere in the photo which reveal partially shaded regions, and hence look darker, then the necessary physical insight about how physical reality actually behaves will be too lacking to have a useful and productive discussion about less obvious things.
76
posted on
04/15/2017 9:36:57 AM PDT
by
coloradan
(The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
To: Ultra Sonic 007
You have far more patience than I.
Sometimes people adopt a conclusion and work backwards to prove it. The proof is always supported by the avoidance of any dissenting facts. This is a psychological problem devoid of logic. Simply, you cannot argue logically a person out of a position that was not arrived at logically.
It was however worth reading your posts as a reminder of the greatness of the Apollo endeavor.
Thanks for your hard work.
77
posted on
04/15/2017 9:44:13 AM PDT
by
PA Engineer
(Liberate America from the Occupation Media.)
To: rx; PA Engineer
The North American size discrepancy is simply due to proximity:
A treatment on how the Blue Marble pictures were taken is provided here.
78
posted on
04/15/2017 10:07:24 AM PDT
by
Ultra Sonic 007
(Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.)
To: rx
that's exactly what the Russians said... wait, no they didn't
79
posted on
04/15/2017 10:10:52 AM PDT
by
Chode
(My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America-#45 DJT)
To: Ultra Sonic 007
I didn't say what you're trying to put in my mouth. Neither are you addressing the concerns I mentioned. The coiled hair excuse does not withstand visual scrutiny of the existing evidence. Many things only become "obvious" once someone has pointed them out.
All can see that the billions NASA has had in its budget for decades can buy lots of PR-savvy and well-crafted turn of phrase. It also has bought a lot more, including a James Hansen, who is superbly-well versed in fakery and one of the leading proponents of the hoax of Global Warming.
Why do criminals invariably trip themselves up? By your logic, we would never see their slip-ups, because they would have been trying,...oops, "mitigating or removing" anything that would tip off the detective.
80
posted on
04/15/2017 10:18:25 AM PDT
by
rx
(Truth Will Out!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-103 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson