If the Moon landing was real: How the hell did they take off FROM the moon?

Entertained yes, informed not so much.
It's just a very long list of All The Things That Dave McGowan Is Misinformed About.
Dave has made a career out of being wrong with almost every single word he writes.
He has a standing invitation to defend his malarkey in public, but he's to cowardly to do anything other than hide in his little digital fortress and sling insults at people.

Any time, any place, Dave.

What do YOU think is his best evidence?

Send me a picture of the rover on the moon from the GLP observatory and I will believe. I will believe.

Dawes' limit. Look it up.

Okay, Mutt-ster. I done looked it up:

English astronomer William R. Dawes (1799-1868, and known as the “eagle-eyed” for his acute vision) determined that the smallest separation between two stars which shows this 30% drop is equal to 4.56 arc seconds divided by the aperture of the telescope in inches. The larger the telescope aperture, the smaller the separation that can be resolved.

This “Dawes’ limit” (which he determined empirically simply by testing the resolving ability of many observers on white star pairs of equal magnitude 6 brightness) only applies to point sources of light (stars). Smaller separations can be resolved in extended objects, such as the planets. For example, Cassini’s Division in the rings of Saturn (0.5 arc seconds across), was discovered using a 2.5” telescope – which has a Dawes’ limit of 1.8 arc seconds!

The ability of a telescope to resolve to Dawes’ limit is usually much more affected by seeing conditions, by the difference in brightness between the binary star components, and by the observer’s visual acuity, than it is by the optical quality of the telescope.

-----
Now, what's the resolution of those scopes in the GLP lab?

The largest scope is a half meter in diameter. I trust you can do the calculations. Then I would suggest you calculate the apparent angular size of the rover at the distance of the moon...

Entertained? Sure. Informed? Only of the fact that he knows nothing about space flight, astronomy, physics, etc. and love to argue from incredulity. Sorry, but reality is not determined by his lack of comprehension.

I don't even find him entertaining.

He attempts the style of a "Cracked" reviewer, but achieves only the disconnected, profanity-laced ramble of a drunken frat boy.

Even his ideas (with the rare exception) are not entertaining, because they are not original. They are cribbed from other hoax believers before him.

For the very best of the breed, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Dave doesn't have enough knowledge to achieve that. Instead of creatively strange thinking, he has only the tired incredulity of a failed stand-up on open mic night.

pointless thread is pointless. remember guys, no gravity on the moon. all the needed was a little rocket propelled push on the lander and they would have lifted off. the only reason we need giant rockets to take off from earth is the amount of gravity on the planet and to get through the atmosphere. the moon has none of those,

Why no moon rovers?

The lander NEVER worked on earth. Not once. Halcyon and astronomer are pulling a lance armstrong and everyone can see it.

Okay, Mutt-ster. This is how I done figured it:

The angular radius of the Airy disk out to the first minima is represented as: A = 1.22 λ / D, where A in radians = 1.22 λ (Lambda) / D (Aperture). A is the angular radius of the Airy disk measured in radians. Lambda is the wavelength of light = 550 µm or 550 nanometers = 550 x 10^-9 meters.

Visible light is between 420 µm and 650 µm. We will use 550 µm, the wavelength of yellow light. D is the diameter of the aperture in meters. For a 500mm scope D = 0.50 meters.
Then A = 1.22 x 550 x 10^-9 meters / 0.50 meters = 1.35747831 x 10^-6 radians.

Converting radians to arcseconds, then 1.35747831 x 10^-6 radians x 360/2pi x 60 x 60 = 0.28 arcseconds. The angular radius of the Airy disk for a point source resolved with a 500mm telescope observing yellow light at a wavelength of 550um is 0.28 arc seconds.

The visible object must be no more than 50% of the diameter of the Airy disk. This would be true only for moderately faint stars. Bright stars put greater light into the visible disk and very faint stars obviously put less light into the visible disk. However, the size of the Airy disk remains constant for a given scope. (There would be considerable less light reflected off the moon's surface than if the telescope was directed at a star. Since the moon is closer than the stars and more light can be captured within the optical area, we will consider this equal...for now.)

We may consider the distance to the moon to be 356,334 kilometers at perigee (closest approach to Earth) and 405,503 kilometers at apogee (farthest point). Therefore, the average distance from the moon to the Earth is 384,392 kilometers. With the 500mm GLP scope and 0.28 arc seconds of observable yellow light, we can hope for a 420 meter resolution. Furthermore, considering an average male of approximately 35 years of age observing through the scope, with reasonable health and 20/20 ocular clarity, observing on a clear, cloudless night, devoid of obstructions, chemtrails, and excessive light pollution, we can modify the calculations and hope for a 440 meter observable resolution. Finally, considering the Lunar Rover to be 3.0 meters long we can make the following conclusions:

Conclusion #1: There is no way we can see the lunar rover using the GLP telescope. At best, we can achieve a 440 meter observable resolution from the 500mm telescope. This can no way see an object that is only 3 meters big. We could not even see the Titanic (268 meters long) if it was sitting on the moon's surface.

Conclusion #2: The moon landing was a hoax. Because we are not able to see the Lunar Rover with the GLP telescope, there was no moon landing. The whole thing is a scam.

The scam is apperant in our lack of knowledge of the moon itself coupled by the lack of moon rovers and fifty other tell tale clues including admit ion from the astro nots themselves.

Astro emits ions?

But that is the tactic you are using. You offer no evidence to support your statement, only dismissal. And calling someone a good is ridicule. So stop using the tactics you blame others for using and try using some logic and real evidence.

Lookup Apollo 1

They did not land when the temperature was 225F or -243F. They landed with a Sun angle around 10 degrees which put the temperature around 80-90F. That is why the shadows are so long, the low Sun angle.

While your first conclusion is correct, a 0.5m telescope is insufficient to see the lunar rover from Earth, the second conclusion is nonsense. It is equavalent to saying I have never been to Boise so it doesn't exist and all descriptions about it are a scam. #2 logically does not follow from the earlier statements.

Both Chandrayaan-1 and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter have taken images of the Apollo landing sites from Lunar orbit.

Considering it was not designed to work in any gravity field stronger than 1/6th g why does that surprise you?
The LM was test flown on Apollo 5, 9, 10, and 11.
It performed satisfactory and was declared operational.

[link to www.youtube.com]


Aaaaand another unevidenced claim.
Dance, boy. Entertain us.



Indeed.
There isn't a telescope on the planet that could image the Apollo artefacts.


You need to explain the steps you took to get from 1 to 2.
Us rational people can't follow your "logic".

I put a €500,- note in a drawer.
There being no technology available to detect the note is evidence that the note isn't there?
Meanwhile I documented the process of putting the note in the drawer.
There are witnesses.
The drawer is locked and I have the key.
Where is the note?
Now aliens might have stolen the note through a trans-dimensional portal (no way of knowing) but the note was put in the drawer.


I have my suspicions about Bielefeld.



We know a lot more about the Moon now than before Apollo.
It is you who doesn't know anything.


Wut.
Yeah sure, the only conceivable explanation for nobody yet spending half a billion dollars on trucking on the Moon is because every single space agency wants to cover up something the Yankees did.


You mean things you don't (want to) understand


Stuff you confabulate isn't real.

This thread is full of promises of evidence that failed to materialise.
Boooring!

Well done. Correct.

The lander was not designed to work on Earth and could not have. It was designed to work in at most 1/6 gravity and a vacuum. That is why it was tested in space.

Perhaps you're thinking of the TRAINING vehicle that did work on Earth. Sure there was a crash with Armstrong (mechanical failure unrelated to whether it could have worked on the Moon or not) but there were hundreds of successful flights.

You are overlooking the actor that was used. Confirmation is easy, just look at his wife.

[link to www.wellaware1.com]

not really. More like glorified fighter jocks.

why is a naza propagandist posting through a Thai proxy from pine gap if he's telling the truth and has nothing to hide?

The moon landing is a fucking joke and an obvious lie, the only people who still believe it are morons and people who have never given it a moments thought

No scientific achievement is EVER considered a fact until duplicated and confirmed independently. This leaves apollo as simply a fairy tale

You're either a poe, or blind as a bat.



You haven't read the thread, have you?
Or the astronauts' bios.



Attempt at ad hominem.


Bare assertion.


Appeal to (imaginary) bandwagon and yet another ad hom.


Red herring.
Going to the Moon is historical event and an engineering achievement, not a "scientific experiment".
We really don't need to shoot another president in Dealey Plaza to proof that JFK was murdered.
We do not need to invade France again to proof that Operation Overlord happened.
Etc.

This logic thing keeps evading you, doesn't it?

Both, actually. I believe every one had an advanced degree, most of them in things like aeronautic engineering (Harrison Schmidtt being the odd man out, as a Geologist).

IIRC Buzz Aldrin had a PHD in orbital mechanics.

This guy nails it! Ask yourself how much we could learn with rovers ON the Moon!!!!

40 years of bullshit with the astronauts themselves trying to speak out.....in code.

Climate change is linked to space weather......to bad we have no equipment on the moon to help us study this......

Why?

Before he agreed to lie.....

After he had a drinking problem.....go figure!

Why no real info on the moon?
Why no moon rover?

We just skip over the only place we "could" go???

Put it this way....

Real estate....it's valuable. We have only the earth. But wait.....
Where are our closest available non earth resources?

The Moon. And yet nothing. No useable pictures released. No rovers checking out the "environment" of our closest next supply?

Astro and halcyon ..... Your both full of poo!