| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 11:07 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yet another thought that occurred to me after hitting "Post":
As any HB will tell you, video evidence counts for nothing. Eyewitnesses are easily duped, and officials can be bought or threatened.
So the only way that a world record 100m sprint can be confirmed is to get the winning athlete to replicate his run and get the same time, every time. If his record run isn't reproducible at an arbitrarily chosen time, then they are a liar who probably has never run a race in their life.
Your notion of proof of events is purely your own.
The litmus test for me as to whether someone who posts in this thread is a troll or a misguided true believer is if they think their arguments can convince a regular member of the public who has never been near a conspiracy site. IDW, for instance, seems to genuinely believe that he is the greatest genius in human history, and that his arguments are unaddressable by the scientific community, and when published will strike the public like a hammer blow and sweep away all pretence of maintaining the hoax.
Then you have someone liek SpaceCadet and his "runnig down the track" nonsense that he likes to trot out at any given opportunity. I keep asking him when he's going to forward his argument to Sibrel or Percy for inclusion in their next books. I mean, he believes his own nonsense, right? He genuinely believes that it is an argument that will stand up to public scrutiny, right? Because the alternative is that he is spouting silly nonsense that not even he believes, purely in order to wind people up.
So go on. Take your argument to the masses. I'm sure you won't be ridiculed as illogical and trollish. Go on. Really. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
It matters not whether one is ridiculed by the masses.
You seem to have a need to be on the "right" side. The majority side.
Those of us here poking holes in your story do not have that need.
No one is trying to wind anyone up.
You have a religious fervor about this, so you feel "wound up" and frustrated.
To some of us, its just a scam, a hoax. It holds nothing sacred for us.
What the masses believe means nothing.
You are at the point where you seem to be foaming at the mouth over this whole issue. You whole ego seems to depend on this, like you are so fearful of this being exposed as a scam.
Why do you care so much? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 11:08 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
One does not need to reproduce an event with total fidelity in order to prove that it happened. By that logic, the only way you could prove that Hillary and Tenzing reached the top of Everest would be to replicate it with identical equipment. It's a fallacy that nobody in the real world can take seriously. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Your poor brain is very weak on analogies, isn't it?
Hillary and Norgay's climb to Everest was independently verifiable by a superior technology, airplanes. Their feat was also promptly reproduced by many others.
[link to www.time.com]
---
On May 29, 1953, Edmund Hillary of New Zealand and Tenzing Norgay of Nepal became the first human beings to conquer Mount Everest--Chomolungma, to its people — at 29,028 ft. the highest place on earth. By any rational standards, this was no big deal. Aircraft had long before flown over the summit, and within a few decades literally hundreds of other people from many nations would climb Everest too.
---
If no one had been able to verify Hillary's claim independently, and if no one had been able to repeat his claimed feat after several decades, you can bet that history would have treated his claim as an anecdotal legend, at best. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/16/2007 11:08 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I know as much as any layman regarding Hubble, its a powerful space telescope, one that takes real nice pictures of Galaxy's & other space shit. & like most other people, i thought that if it cn take those pictures of stellar nurseries light years away, then the moon must be cake walk in comparison, to see.I didnt realise that the thing is so crap that it cant do that, or that it couldnt keep up with something that takes a whole fucking month to orbit the earth!If thats ignorance, then im ignorant.But at the end of the day, you still cant proove beyond any doubt that Apollo is real. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313111
Oh, please. Your petulance at having your ignorance displayed is just a little obvious.
Hubble is not crap. After a shaky start, it has gone on to be one of the best scientific instruments ever created. Just because you don't know the limitations of optical physics does not mean that it is deficient and could be made better (which is what you seem to suggest with your 'crap' comment).
If you had asked why an electron microscope, which is capable of very high magnification, can't see the footprints and I responded that due to the way it and physics work it can only magnify small objects and not see long distances, would you respond that the microscope is crap, or would you gracefully admit that you had made your initial statement without full knowledge of its functioning and limitations? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 11:13 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Thats daily reproducibility.
There's a prime example of how you are deliberately choosing arbitrary criteria that you know can't be met. Why "daily"? Why is that necessary?
Apollo was reproduced. There were six landings. All the supporting evidence, which you insist counts for nothing, shows that they did what they said they did. Your argument, and yes I believe you are trolling, is fatuous. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
It doesnt have to be daily.
I just pointed out the the Concorde flew daily, for years.
We supposedly went to the moon in 1969.
Lets have a look at recent history:
The decade of the 1980's-nope, no moon men landing in that decade.
1990's- err, nope, no moon men there.
2000-2007- Nope. Not even close. Are we regressing?
Unless you reproduce this, even with todays technology, much less 1969 technology, I call B.S.  |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/16/2007 11:13 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hillary and Norgay's climb to Everest was independently verifiable by a superior technology, airplanes. Their feat was also promptly reproduced by many others. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
Irrelevant! Your thesis with regard to Apollo seems to be that no supporting evidence is admissible, that it is only complete and total recreation that can prove it. Your hypocrisy on this point once again suggests to me that you have a less than 100% investment in your argument.
Apollo was independently verified by superior technologies like radio tracking by neutral and hostile nations as well as amateur groups. It is verified by video footage that, despite what Sibrel will tell you, is not possible to fake on Earth. It is verified by hundreds of kilograms of samples that the entire worldwide geological community, after decades of study, unanimously attests as lunar in origin. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313010
10/16/2007 11:16 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hillary and Norgay's climb to Everest was independently verifiable by a superior technology, airplanes. Their feat was also promptly reproduced by many others.
Irrelevant! Your thesis with regard to Apollo seems to be that no supporting evidence is admissible, that it is only complete and total recreation that can prove it. Your hypocrisy on this point once again suggests to me that you have a less than 100% investment in your argument.
Apollo was independently verified by superior technologies like radio tracking by neutral and hostile nations as well as amateur groups. It is verified by video footage that, despite what Sibrel will tell you, is not possible to fake on Earth. It is verified by hundreds of kilograms of samples that the entire worldwide geological community, after decades of study, unanimously attests as lunar in origin. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
You lose. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 11:18 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Certainly it could be reproduced with the technology of the time. Given enough money to reproduce a Saturn 5 and the Apollo spacecraft and lander,. it certainly could be done again. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
Your bare assertion of this doesn't make it so. The fact that neither the United States nor anyone else has been able to reproduce the alleged feat despite 35 years of advancing technology is strong evidence that it did not occur in 1969 either.
But why? Just to satisfy a few internet kooks? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
You obviously have no respect for either science or exploration. When a scientist claims a breakthrough, other scientists do not consider it "wasteful" to reproduce and thereby verify the experimental results. Just the opposite--reproducibility of results is at the very heart of their life's work.
There is a reason why the famous scientific humor magazine is called, "The Journal of Irreproducible Results." It is because irreproducibility is the very antithesis of good science.
These same arguments apply to exploration. When an explorer claims to have seen a new and unusual land, it is not "wasteful" for other explorers to go see this new land for themselves. Again, such re-exploration is the very heart of their life's work. They realize that without it, they would be mere storytellers. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 11:20 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The next generation?? When? The shuttle should have been the "next generation", and it can only go up a few hundred miles.
You really know very little about the history of the space program, don't you? What grade are you in?
The shuttle was designed and built SPECIFICALLY for low earth orbit for an entirely different purpose.
Keep it up...you demonstrate perfectly my contention that those who are most critical of Apollo are precisely those who know the least about it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
More ad hominems, I see. Oh well.
Yes the shuttle was built for that. Fine.
But where is the spaceship designed for moon travel? Or mars travel? By now we should logically be able to put men on Mars, or at least the Moon.
But there is no spaceship taking men to the moon, or Mars.
I dont buy the "we could but we just dont want to idea".
Its the final frontier, as Star trek says. This is the ultimate thing for man to do, we should be building super hi tech spaceships and venturing out on all sorts of manned missions.
But, nothing. |
| slartybartfast
User ID: 295998
10/16/2007 11:22 AM
 | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The moneys tied up to pay swat teams to storm bars when smokers go bad. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 11:23 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Im undecided when it comes to Apollo & if you read my post(or quoted me in full, instead of selectively)you would see that.So dont tar me with the same brush as others just because i have doubts.If there are doubts its not my fault, fone NASA & tell them to do their job properly, you do pay them after all & even though you do, they still treat you like shit & lie to you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313111
Examples please?
I know as much as any layman regarding Hubble, its a powerful space telescope, one that takes real nice pictures of Galaxy's & other space shit. & like most other people, i thought that if it cn take those pictures of stellar nurseries light years away, then the moon must be cake walk in comparison, to see.I didnt realise that the thing is so crap that it cant do that, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313111
Again, you show your ignorance of basic optics and of the angular diameters involved. Most galaxies subtend an angular diameter of several arc-seconds, with the closer ones being several arc-minutes in diameter. The closest major galaxy to us, the Andromeda galaxy, is a full 3 DEGREES wide...six times the angular diameter of the entire full moon. Deep sky astronomical objects are dim because of their distance, but not very small. Hubble is designed to image these objects and has an angular resolution of approximately 0.05 arc-seconds. The Apollo lander at a distance of a quarter million miles is less than one millionth of a degree wide...simply too small to be seen with a practical telescope from this distance. This does not at all mean that Hubble is, as you put it, "crap"...it's just that you simply do not understand the physics involved.
or that it couldnt keep up with something that takes a whole fucking month to orbit the earth! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313111
Hubble is designed to spend days lined up and staring at a single unmoving distant point in space...it only has to compensate for it's own orbital speed around the earth, thus requing one precision rotation in 24 hours. To track the moon requires a much more complex maneauver. First, the moon is moving at a faster than sidereal rate. Second, as Hubble orbits the earth, the direction of the moon from its point of view swings back and forth. Hubble was designed to deal with neither of these types of motion since they are not required for deep space photography.
If thats ignorance, then im ignorant. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313111
I'm glad you realize that. But also realize that not everyone is ignorant and that things way beyond your meager comprehension happen on a daily basis. Just because YOU cannot imagine how to get to the moon doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
And again, you demonstrate my contention perfectly. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313111
10/16/2007 11:29 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I know as much as any layman regarding Hubble, its a powerful space telescope, one that takes real nice pictures of Galaxy's & other space shit. & like most other people, i thought that if it cn take those pictures of stellar nurseries light years away, then the moon must be cake walk in comparison, to see.I didnt realise that the thing is so crap that it cant do that, or that it couldnt keep up with something that takes a whole fucking month to orbit the earth!If thats ignorance, then im ignorant.But at the end of the day, you still cant proove beyond any doubt that Apollo is real.
Oh, please. Your petulance at having your ignorance displayed is just a little obvious.
Hubble is not crap. After a shaky start, it has gone on to be one of the best scientific instruments ever created. Just because you don't know the limitations of optical physics does not mean that it is deficient and could be made better (which is what you seem to suggest with your 'crap' comment).
If you had asked why an electron microscope, which is capable of very high magnification, can't see the footprints and I responded that due to the way it and physics work it can only magnify small objects and not see long distances, would you respond that the microscope is crap, or would you gracefully admit that you had made your initial statement without full knowledge of its functioning and limitations? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Microscopes aren't made to look at the stars, so wtf are you talking about?
So your a google hubble expert.Good for you but your only copying a pasting from people who told us that the landers couldn't make craters due to the Magical moon dust, that has cement like properties due to its jaggedness... who then later turn around a tell us to believe that the Clementine image of Hadley Rile show's " a diffuse dark spot exactly at the local of the lunar module Falcon, (wait for it) believed created by the engine blast"!!!
So which one is it???
These are the same cunts who are telling you that the Hubble cant photograph landing sites on the moon, some of them stretching out a mile!!!! ( your telling me they cant see the rover tracks & bootprints, from the last mission when they traveled all over that valley?)
Your just pissed because you suck at rugby. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 11:30 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Apollo was independently verified by superior technologies like radio tracking by neutral and hostile nations as well as amateur groups. It is verified by video footage that, despite what Sibrel will tell you, is not possible to fake on Earth. It is verified by hundreds of kilograms of samples that the entire worldwide geological community, after decades of study, unanimously attests as lunar in origin. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Your bare assertion of three pieces of baloney does not make them true.
1) There is no good evidence of independent radio tracking. As far as I know, Russia has not thrown open its Apollo tracking to full public scrutiny; and sources differ as to Jodrell Bank's alleged tracking of Apollo 11. Jodrell Bank primarily tracked Russian space missions, and indeed its primary duty in the Cold War was to act as a British-American spy listening post.
In any case, radio tracking can only detect spacecraft, not humans, and hence provides no specific evidence of a manned landing on the moon.
2) Any good 1969 movie studio could easily fake the video footage, and they have done so for science fiction movies.
3) The alleged moon rocks are now ignored as "unrepresentative"--i.e., scientifically useless and of dubious origin. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 11:33 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I'm glad you realize that. But also realize that not everyone is ignorant and that things way beyond your meager comprehension happen on a daily basis. Just because YOU cannot imagine how to get to the moon doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
And again, you demonstrate my contention perfectly. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
You pro moon landing folks seem to insult in each post.
Thats not a sign of maturity, and it doesnt make your position look more sound.
I am sure many of us could "imagine" how to get to the moon.
But the fact that you cant get there is what is important. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 11:37 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Apollo was independently verified by superior technologies like radio tracking by neutral and hostile nations as well as amateur groups. It is verified by video footage that, despite what Sibrel will tell you, is not possible to fake on Earth. It is verified by hundreds of kilograms of samples that the entire worldwide geological community, after decades of study, unanimously attests as lunar in origin.
Your bare assertion of three pieces of baloney does not make them true.
1) There is no good evidence of independent radio tracking. As far as I know, Russia has not thrown open its Apollo tracking to full public scrutiny; and sources differ as to Jodrell Bank's alleged tracking of Apollo 11. Jodrell Bank primarily tracked Russian space missions, and indeed its primary duty in the Cold War was to act as a British-American spy listening post.
In any case, radio tracking can only detect spacecraft, not humans, and hence provides no specific evidence of a manned landing on the moon.
2) Any good 1969 movie studio could easily fake the video footage, and they have done so for science fiction movies.
3) The alleged moon rocks are now ignored as "unrepresentative"--i.e., scientifically useless and of dubious origin. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
The movie Capricorn One was about a faked manned mars mission.
Supposedly it was originally supposed to be about a fake moon mission, but they changed the plot around a bit. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 11:38 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Reproducibility applies to experiments, not events. Experiments are a method of testing hypotheses that probe unvarying laws of nature. Events occur in a certain time and place and are verified not by Xeroxlike recreation, but by examination of the corroborating evidence. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28648
So you've lost the scientific argument and instead want to deal with the court system?
Events are verified by court trial. Witnesses must testify under oath and cross-examination. Any alleged corroborating evidence is inadmissible unless those who collected and preserved the evidence are willing to testify to its authenticity.
This is our American system for verifying the truth of an event. If you have objections to this system you are free to propose a Constitutional amendment to change it; but until your amendment is ratified by 3/4 of the states, you must live by the system as it currently stands. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 11:43 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Witnesses must testify under oath and cross-examination. Any alleged corroborating evidence is inadmissible unless those who collected and preserved the evidence are willing to testify to its authenticity. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
And as any good criminal or civil investigator will tell you:
It is precisely those who are most reluctant to testify whose testimony is most likely to be honest. That is why the power to issue and enforce subpoenas is absolutely critical to discerning the truth of a disputed event. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 11:46 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Take your argument to the masses. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
We already did over 200 years ago, and their answer was the American court system. If you wish to prove that an event occurred, you need sworn testimony under cross-examination. Any alleged evidence is worthless unless whoever collected and preserved the evidence testifies under oath and cross-examination. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313111
10/16/2007 11:46 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I'm glad you realize that. But also realize that not everyone is ignorant and that things way beyond your meager comprehension happen on a daily basis. Just because YOU cannot imagine how to get to the moon doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
And again, you demonstrate my contention perfectly. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
So your not ignorant because you looked it up on google?
My comprehension is meager because i expect a telescope to be able to see things far away?
Just because YOU believe everything you see on a NASA website, doesnt mean that its true & as we are insulting each other (didnt take much to get you going) you can stick your contention in your gullible ass. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 11:49 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Eyewitnesses are easily duped, and officials can be bought or threatened. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Yes, this is exactly what sports officials have to consider when examining a disputed record. The final authority is the court system, which has the power to issue and enforce subpoenas, and to punish perjurers. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 11:52 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
A half million people around the world worked for a decade on the Apollo program. Do you discount them all? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
Simulators are deliberately designed to "fool" as much of the system (and its staff) as possible. The number of humans who need to know the difference between a simulation and an actual event need not be large. And as we know from 9/11, it is apparently quite easy to coerce large numbers of bureaucrats into silence, especially when the mainstream media are ready and able to persecute whistleblowers. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/16/2007 12:14 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
One last go before bed.
What the masses believe means nothing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Whoa, hang on. Why are you advocating a public trial if you don't care who believes or not? Your trollishness is showing again.
You are at the point where you seem to be foaming at the mouth over this whole issue. You whole ego seems to depend on this, like you are so fearful of this being exposed as a scam. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
You'd like to think so, I'm sure. Amused, yes. At least you came up with something more original that the same old Hubble argument that gets trotted out two or three times per thread.
Your bare assertion of three pieces of baloney does not make them true. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Your handwaving dismissal of them doesn't invalidate them.
1) There is no good evidence of independent radio tracking. As far as I know, Russia has not thrown open its Apollo tracking to full public scrutiny; and sources differ as to Jodrell Bank's alleged tracking of Apollo 11. Jodrell Bank primarily tracked Russian space missions, and indeed its primary duty in the Cold War was to act as a British-American spy listening post.
In any case, radio tracking can only detect spacecraft, not humans, and hence provides no specific evidence of a manned landing on the moon. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Well, you actually addressed a point about the evidence there. Good for you.
When the humans in the spacecraft are talking about current events, thus proving it is not a recording, and the astronauts are seen getting into the capsule and being launched, the capsule is then tracked both optically and by radio in LEO and during trans lunar coast, they are tracked to the surface where voice communications are picked up,and then they do the whole thin in reverse, then yes, the humans have been tracked.
As is usual, though, you summarily dismiss evidence when you have no glib rebuttal to hand. The Soviets congratulated the US on the mission. They have discussed tracking them, you just aren't interested in finding that out for yourself.
2) Any good 1969 movie studio could easily fake the video footage, and they have done so for science fiction movies. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
No, they have not. Not even recent recreations of the Apollo missions have been able to completely reproduce all the effects of being on the Moon The dust billows, for example.
Please nominate one contemporary movie (please, please say 2001) that is completely convincing. No such movie exists.
3) The alleged moon rocks are now ignored as "unrepresentative"--i.e., scientifically useless and of dubious origin. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
You keep saying that. Your interpretation of that article is laughable. Find me any supporting evidence that the geological community has abandoned the Apollo samples. It would be pretty big news, neh? You have been wilfully misinterpreting "unrepresentative" as "useless". The bit about "dubious origin" is a complete fabrication on your part. Contact any planetary scientist and ask them to confirm that your interpretation of this article is correct. You are trolling. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313111
10/16/2007 12:22 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
One last go before bed. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
I hope you dream all Rugby. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/16/2007 12:26 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Microscopes aren't made to look at the stars, so wtf are you talking about? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313111
It was an analogy. I'm sorry if you missed that. My point was that if you make a claim about the capabilities of a scientific instrument and it is shown that you have misunderstood what it is capable of, then it does not mean that the instrument is "crap" as you claimed, it means that you didn't understand its capabilities.
So your a google hubble expert.Good for you but your only copying a pasting from people Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
No, I have an education and can work things out for myself. If I provide references, it is to corroborate what I am saying. Pity you seem intent on ignoring that. I guess the only way that you can cope with having your incomplete knowledge of the subject revealed, apart from a sudden attack of profanity, is to insinuate that I am just ignorantly parroting other people's lies, rather than admit that I know more about this one particular subject than you do. Grow up.
who told us that the landers couldn't make craters due to the Magical moon dust, that has cement like properties due to its jaggedness... who then later turn around a tell us to believe that the Clementine image of Hadley Rile show's " a diffuse dark spot exactly at the local of the lunar module Falcon, (wait for it) believed created by the engine blast"!!!
So which one is it??? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Both. As I explained earlier, you have, like a hardpan gravel road here on Earth, a compressed layer covered by a thin, loose layer. The top loose layer can be blown away, changing the colour of the surface, revealing the hardpan layer underneath that is more resistant to being blown away.
These are the same cunts who are telling you that the Hubble cant photograph landing sites on the moon, some of them stretching out a mile!!!! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
No, optical physics, that significantly predates any human spaceflight, tells us the absolute limit of resolving power of any telescope. Have you bothered to look at the Rayleigh Criterion stuff I recommended? No? Then your ignorance is your own fault, and you look very silly for continuing to insist that the Hubble parameters are somehow made up, and it is capable of defying the laws of physics.
(your telling me they cant see the rover tracks & bootprints, from the last mission when they traveled all over that valley?) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Oh, please. If I hold up a 1cm length of cotton thread 200m away from you, can you see it? How about if I hold up a 1m length?
Your just pissed because you suck at rugby. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
What the hell is rugby? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 12:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Im not convinced.
Smells like BS to me. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 292703
10/16/2007 12:53 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Oh, please. If I hold up a 1cm length of cotton thread 200m away from you, can you see it? How about if I hold up a 1m length? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Can i see it? With the Hubble telescope i could.
All those You cant see Apollo with hubble sites, you quote so much, conveniently dont take that into account when they tell you the science of why it cant be seen, instead you get this drivel "you can see images with an angular resolution of about 0.07 arcsec; they show details as small as 130 meters across. Still a lot larger than the lunar lander...." 130 metres! That 's a lot smaller most of those landing sites. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 12:57 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
A half million people around the world worked for a decade on the Apollo program. Do you discount them all?
Simulators are deliberately designed to "fool" as much of the system (and its staff) as possible. The number of humans who need to know the difference between a simulation and an actual event need not be large. And as we know from 9/11, it is apparently quite easy to coerce large numbers of bureaucrats into silence, especially when the mainstream media are ready and able to persecute whistleblowers. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
You expect us to believe this when Clinton couldn't even keep a blow job a secret? And this all occured on international television?
How gullible are YOU? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 292703
10/16/2007 1:10 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
the Apollo 17 mission had a duration of 12.6 days, and a time on the lunar surface of 75 hr with a total surface traverse distance of approximately 35 km.
They covered 35km, yet we cant see it with hubble because the max it can do is 130 metres? So the answer to this one is "both" like your magical psychotic lunar gravel?& dont tell me about string again, if this thing can look at 130 metres then it sure as hell will see two parallel lines running on for km's & km's. Or wasnt it designed to see lines? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 292703
10/16/2007 1:12 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Im not convinced.
Smells like BS to me. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
ofcourse it is thats why hes run off to bed.The Lunar gravel & Hubble is his house of cards. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 1:26 PM | | Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 1:29 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
the Apollo 17 mission had a duration of 12.6 days, and a time on the lunar surface of 75 hr with a total surface traverse distance of approximately 35 km.
They covered 35km, yet we cant see it with hubble because the max it can do is 130 metres? So the answer to this one is "both" like your magical psychotic lunar gravel?& dont tell me about string again, if this thing can look at 130 metres then it sure as hell will see two parallel lines running on for km's & km's. Or wasnt it designed to see lines? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 292703
Are you completely stupid, or just ignorant? How wide are the tracks? What is the angular resolution of the Hubble?
Can you see a thread from a distance of 100 miles...no matter how long it is? Obviously not. You have to be able to see the width of the thread to detect it. It doesn't matter if it's 50 miles long, you still won't see it. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
