Mar 12, 2011

Oh No, Not Good- Nuclear Power Plant's Problem

A nuclear power plant that is generating electricity near the epicenter of the quake broke down and cannot be used rigt now. But what's more problematic is, a "nuclear power plant meltdown" is starting to occur, which releases deadly radioactive materials into the atmosphere. Oh no. This has gotta get better soon.

Mar 11, 2011

More about the Earthquake

Today on March 11, 2:46 pm, an earthquake with a magnitude of 8.8 hit Japan's northern area. (by the way the one in New Zealand was M6.3.) Tokyo, where I live, is in the middle of Japan, but still it shaked a lot. Maybe it's because I live on the 8th floor of a 11-story apartment building.
This is my house. It was shaking around like crazy! I took this vid about 30 mins after the quake, but still it was shaking from time to time. Almost all the train lines have stopped here, so my dad's now walking home from work.
Some people have died from this quake, and some missing from the tsunami. Living in Japan, you always have a chance of encountering a quake. Luckily, my friends and family seem to be all right.

About earthquake in Japan

I was practicing my violin in my house On Shinjuku when it happened. It was the strongest earthquake in my life.

Mar 10, 2011

Discovery Lands

Discovery landed on Earth the  39th and final time. Discovery has flown many important flights in the space shuttle program, some of them including:


  1. flew all the "return-to-flight" missions after the Challenger and Columbia disasters
  2. launched the revolutionary Hubble space telescope
  3. first space shuttle to dock to the International Space Staation
  4. flew the 100th space shuttle mission
  5. and, first shuttle to launch on July 4th

These are just some of its achievements.
Discovery flew in space for 148 million miles in space, which is enough to go to the sun and come back halfway!!A It spent a total of 365 days(a year) in Earth orbit.

space shutle Discovery



launch of space shuttle Discovery


Launch

























Oh, and the Wikipedia page about Discovery had a funny sentence in it. It said

The Discovery weighed some 6,870 pounds less than Columbia when it was rolled out because of lessens learned (is that a pun or a typo?).
from Wikipedia
       I think it's a pun.

We Really Have Went to the Moon. 10 Reasons it's True (Part 3)


Part 3 of the moon landing conspiracy theory-buster series. You should see part 2 first if you haven't seen that yet.

And, I realized that talking about the 10 mistakes of M. Haga will take too much and isn't realistic, so I'll get as far as I can go today and I'll end the series at that.

6. Haga says"why are all of the photos taken on the moon artistic and professional-looking, but the cameras on the moon didn't have viewfinders and were mounted on astronaut's chests, so they can't have taken so many good photos. So they were took by somebody else."
Buzz Aldrin on the moon(original photo)
This is the original

This again shows Haga's lack of knowledge on the Apollo missions. There were many unsuccessful photos too. See Buzz on the top of the page? This photo has actually been edited to make it look better. See the difference for yourself. A black stripe was added on the top to make it look better.


7. (This is Haga's most stupid and pointless and weirdest theory on the book) Haga says,"There are almost no pictures of Neil Armstrong on the moon, just the footage of him going down the ladder to the surface. He didn't want to get into photos, for some reason." Okay, say you went to a trip to the top of the Everest, and you took a photographer with you to record the adventure. But when you show the photos to your friend, he says "But there are no photos of the photographer! Hey, did you go there to the Himalayas? Or are you making it up?" That's what M. Haga's doing.Neil Armstrong was the photographer!(There is always only one guy with a camera on lunar surface activities.)


Conclusion; M. Haga's book isn't worth reading, and we went to the moon.
But still, there are some mysteries that I don't have an answer with. Some of them are;
  1. Backgrounds of 2 photos taken on the moon from different places are very similar to each other
  2. Though when landing on the moon, the engine should be making a deafening roar, but we can't hear that from the recorded files of the landing procedure
  3. the letter "c" was found on a rock in a photo of the moon's surface

I have no ideas to confront these facts, so if you have one could you comment on it?

Mar 9, 2011

We Really Have Went to the Moon. 10 Reasons it's True (Part 2)

If you haven't read the part 1 and the original blog post, you should see here and next, over here.

4. Haga says "Crosshairs that are etched onto the lens of the camera seem to be behind objects on the moon, so it was added later on Earth."
For example, this photo over here.
But this is explainable, too. This only appears in white or bright things, so the overexposure of the film blotted out the crosshairs.


5. Haga points out,"There are no stars in the sky in photos of the moon. This is because they were taken on Earth, and if they added random stars, they would have to 'report' new stars. So NASA didn't add stars in photos."
Oh my gosh, can Haga Masamitsu even think? Let's look at a photo. Right, no stars. But next, let's look at a photo of the ISS with the Earth and space in the back.



Yes, there are no stars on this too! It's because the light from either the Earth or the moon is too bright to show any stars. And for Haga's information, astronauts on the moon did look at stars in the sky. So this is from Haga's lack of knowledge about man's greatest mission.


I'll leave it to this for today. Check back tomorrow for part 3!

Mar 8, 2011

We Really Have Went to the Moon. 10 Reasons it's True

So, The 10 reasons why.
(If you don't know what I'm talking about, just see my last post)
1. Haga says"The flag on the surface of the moon billows. This isn't possible in a place where there in no air, so the film was taken on Earth."
Well, I... uh, just look at the vid.


See? The flag doesn't billow, but just move by the motion of the astronauts. To us, the flag waves in a very weird manner, because there is no air! Oh, and the funny thing is, the astronauts even mention that it looks like it's billowing, if NASA's faking lunar landings, why would they say that?


2. Haga says "The shadows' directions aren't pointing to the same direction. Thus, lighting was used. So they were taken on Earth."
 Right, so let's look at the pic. The moon has a lot of uneven ground, and the 2D photo probably doesnt show it. Plus, There are a lot of light that reaches the moon- from the sun, the Earth, and the light reflected from the surface of the moon-, so I don't think this is a big problem. It's a trick of the eye.

3. Haga says"Even when someone is in the shadow, he isn't blacked out, and looks like a lighting was used."
This is a photo of Buzz Aldrin getting off the ladder, and though he' in the shadow, he looks sharp and clear.
It's because, the moon's sand reflects a lot of light and so the reflected light is lighting Buzz.

Fmm..., this is taking longer than I thought. So, I'm gonna make this part 1 of the Apollo conspiracy-theory-buster blog posts, and probably finish it in 3 or 4 parts.
So bye for now!


Note; I've written part 2.

Mar 7, 2011

Warning: Do Not Read This Book About the Apollo Mission

This book is ridiculous.
Title: "Did The Apollo Really Go To The Moon?"
By: M. Haga
Translated by: Haga Masamitsu

If you haven't even heard of this book, it's all right. I'm sure you already noticed the weird thing about the writer and the translator's names. And you're right. They are the same people. (Told you it was ridiculous!) There is only a Japanese version this book.

So, anyway, this book is saying, "Apollo didn't go to the moon, the moon shots were taken on the Earth", but there isn't even a sentence that literally. Haga just asks the reader to decide for himself. (by the way, I don't even know why people say that we didn't go to the moon.)

There were a lot of facts that are wrong and/or explainable in the book, and when I counted the mistakes, there was a grand total of 10. Unbelievable.

I'll cover each and every one of them on my next post, and definitely prove that mankind went to the moon.

Mar 6, 2011

Life Found in a Meteorite(again)??

bacteria in meteorite
Remember this photo? This was taken like 15 years ago and it's a meteorite from Mars, and the worm-thing was thought to be a microbe or something, and it raised a lot of speculations about life on Mars. In my opinion, it does look like a bacteria to me, and if it's so, it'll be great. But, the meteorite is like millions of years old and so even if it's real, I don't think there is life on Mars now anymore. Maybe there'll be fossils there, I don't know.

                  
Anyway, to the topic of this post; A meteorite with a microbe-looking thing has been found in a meteorite(again). It's published in the Journal of Cosmology. So, where is it from?(or rather, where did the bacteria get in?)

The worm-thing is thought to be a cyanobacteria, and they are found in places that have water. But the meteorite is made by a material that falls apart when exposed to water.
Fmm... I guess the temporary conclusion now could be that it really is an alien microbe. Maybe.