Astro-NOTS?

reply to post by superman2012


link not working for me..

www.popsci.com...

reply to post by superman2012


Nah still not working..
I do see the url says spy satellite launch so I guess that's what it is..
Yes, do US don't mind spending $billions to spy on even their own citizens but don't expect the same interest in a few moon pics..

reply to post by VariableConstant


Yes, but it had to be roughly oriented towards the Earth (which is, I suppose, still do-able by machine).

The question you have to ask yourself is; that if they would go to the moon to set up a fake like that, why not actually send some people? I mean, the maths/physics says it was do-able, the technology we got from the space race sure looks like a lot of people were working on that specific task.

Or why haven't some of the over 400,000 people (many not employed by NASA) who worked on the Apollo projects, on their death beds said "Nah, I just spent decades of my life obsessing and working on a fake"?

That big a fake, right in the public eye, for all those years, by all those people and with all this material evidence?

reply to post by chr0naut

Or why haven't some of the over 400,000 people (many not employed by NASA) who worked on the Apollo projects, on their death beds said "Nah, I just spent decades of my life obsessing and working on a fake"?

IF it was faked do you really think all 400,00 would know??

Originally posted by jlv70
Well I did this by holding a ruler up to the screen so the what I came up with is going to be approximate at best.
I measured Armstrong at 2.25 inches, I measured his shadow at three inches, according to Pythagoras the degree of that angle is 36.86.
I measured Aldrin also at 2.25 inches, with a shadow length of 4.375 inches, giving me an angle degree of 27.22.
As to what any of that might mean I have no idea.

Ruler up to the screen VERY scientific and what was the terrain like around then as that will change shadow length!

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by VariableConstant

 

That's what I am saying, except not. I don't think there are any manmade objects on the moon, and if there were, they could have been placed there like you stated. I just don't understand why they don't train one of their superpowerful telescopes at the moon and show everyone the footprints, flag, tracks, parts of spacecraft, tools, etc., that got left behind. I know it would shut me up about this...unless those photos were faked too! haha

Telecopes are designed for light gathering not ABSOLUTE magnification quick bit of maths for you even if Hubble could magnify 10,000x which it cant lets see

238,000/10,000= 23.8 miles the Moon would still look 23.8 miles away how wide was the lander about 12 ft could you see an object that size at that distance!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Ruler up to the screen VERY scientific and what was the terrain like around then as that will change shadow length!

What's wrong with a ruler up to the screen WMD ??
The proportions don't change so it seems accurate enough for me..
As for the terrain, as far as I could tell it was level..

Now why not ADD to the thread instead of your usual.. .. with nothing??

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by VariableConstant

 

That's what I am saying, except not. I don't think there are any manmade objects on the moon, and if there were, they could have been placed there like you stated. I just don't understand why they don't train one of their superpowerful telescopes at the moon and show everyone the footprints, flag, tracks, parts of spacecraft, tools, etc., that got left behind. I know it would shut me up about this...unless those photos were faked too! haha

Telecopes are designed for light gathering not ABSOLUTE magnification quick bit of maths for you even if Hubble could magnify 10,000x which it cant lets see
238,000/10,000= 23.8 miles the Moon would still look 23.8 miles away how wide was the lander about 12 ft could you see an object that size at that distance!

Hubble sees a little better than that..
Get some facts WMD
hubblesite.org...

reply to post by backinblack


You think so what is the smallest object Hubble can resolve on the Moon


curious.astro.cornell.edu...


From that site

When you do this you get 96.1 meters (315 feet). The astronauts didn't leave anything this big!

Anything else you want to know bib!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack

 

You think so what the smallest object Hubble can resolve on the Moon
curious.astro.cornell.edu...
From that site

When you do this you get 96.1 meters (315 feet). The astronauts didn't leave anything this big!

Anything else you want to know bib!

Actually I think it said it could recognize object of 280' diameter..

Something that's very hard to do from

23.8 miles away in the detail shown in the pics..

the Moon would still look 23.8 miles away

But you carry on..
Maybe one day I'll learn something important from you..

reply to post by backinblack


The point of the question I answered was why not photograph the sites with a large telescope ,it was to show that you would not see the objects at the landing sites is that correct or not!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack

 

The point of the question I answered was why not photograph the sites with a large telescope ,it was to show that you would not see the objects at the landing sites is that correct or not!!

That's correct and I'd already linked to that site to prove just that..
But it does show detail a bit better than what you stated..
You merely chose to parrot the same information..

reply to post by superman2012

The US gov't lies. NASA is funded by the US gov't. Are you actually saying that you believe honest lies after criticizing people on your thread for doing the same? I don't know for a fact whether they have landed on the moon or not, neither do you. The people that know for sure, sure aren't talking or providing concrete proof.

What do you mean by "honest lies?" Ralph Rene has been shown to be a liar. If you wish to prove that the space program was a huge hoax, go ahead. (As for the antagonistic tone of that thread, most of that comes from Jarrah White's bile.)

reply to post by superman2012


Since the real point of this thread is the OP, and the crap "glowing" book review, of Ralph Rene's crap book, let's get some better perspective into just what sort of crack pot Ralph Rene' really was:

www.studyphysics.ca...

Read in full for proper education.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In case you like videos, to see the self-destruction of that man.....sad, really.
Even more sad, that he got ANY attention whatsoever:

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack

 

The point of the question I answered was why not photograph the sites with a large telescope ,it was to show that you would not see the objects at the landing sites is that correct or not!!

That's correct and I'd already linked to that site to prove just that..
But it does show detail a bit better than what you stated..
You merely chose to parrot the same information..

I did not parrot the same info, I have posted this many times before on other threads before YOU found out a little about photography!!! also I replied to a post posted before YOURS had not read yours, the site I linked to re Hubble was a different one to yours ok!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by superman2012

 

The US gov't lies. NASA is funded by the US gov't. Are you actually saying that you believe honest lies after criticizing people on your thread for doing the same? I don't know for a fact whether they have landed on the moon or not, neither do you. The people that know for sure, sure aren't talking or providing concrete proof.

What do you mean by "honest lies?" Ralph Rene has been shown to be a liar. If you wish to prove that the space program was a huge hoax, go ahead. (As for the antagonistic tone of that thread, most of that comes from Jarrah White's bile.)

Reread your earlier comment before questioning me on what you said. US gov't is shown to be a liar. It doesn't mean you should disregard everything that they say does it? MY OPINION is that it is hoaxed. I don't have to convince you, if you disagree with ME, prove me wrong. I am open to concrete proof.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by superman2012

 

Since the real point of this thread is the OP, and the crap "glowing" book review, of Ralph Rene's crap book, let's get some better perspective into just what sort of crack pot Ralph Rene' really was:

www.studyphysics.ca...

Read in full for proper education.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In case you like videos, to see the self-destruction of that man.....sad, really.
Even more sad, that he got ANY attention whatsoever:

edit on 15 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: can't tell you; would have to kill you.

Did you write this? or are you just believing what someone wrote? How is that any different than me? I am sick of people that crap on others when they don't believe what you believe...can i guess? are you catholic too!? haha

reply to post by superman2012


Funny huh, no one at NASA lies..
That is of course unless they speak out about NASA..
Then they are called liars and crackpots...
It's happened many times..