Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

Originally posted by golemina

Let's rent some of the REAL WORLD optical systems 100 inch, 200 inch, Hubble anyone?

Why do you think the Hubble would help you?

From one of my posts earlier today.

The resolving power of the Hubble is 0.05 arc seconds or 0.0000138888888889 deg at the distance of the Moon that's about 305 ft.

Also how do you work out the Moons gravity as you claim it to be

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
The original O/P asserts we didn't haven the technology to film 'lunar' scenes on earth. This is false.

Please refer to 2001 a space odyssey, which was filmed on earth.

2001 does not depict an airless 1/6th G environment on the Moon. So it's a very poor example. It's a great film, but it's full of technical flaws. No astronauts are ever shown to be bouncing around in the lighter gravity, dust billows in the air when the Aries Ib lands at Moon base Clavius. etc. I have yet to see a movie accurately depict a Lunar environment (even with today's CG tech).

It's impossible to fake 1/6th G on Earth. And there is no vacuum chamber on Earth big enough to hold at least a 300m diameter set of a fake Lunar environment within it.

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by 1nquisitive

 

It would be most considerate of you to link to those specific posts so that we are not guessing which ones they are. Telling us to go look it up is not conducive to the flow of the thread and is basically poor manners.

No it's lazyness on the half of others. Also, I'm being constantly asked to repeat said anomalies, it's as if I'm being made to appear silent by your blatant and repeated ignoring of my earlier posts.

I will not repeat myself again.

Please stop saying "you haven't specified XYZ", yes I have, several times.

edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: spelling

First of all, I have not asked you for any information prior to my last post. Second, you have postulated there are anomalies in the Moon landings, but as of yet, not given any specifics. Third, since you are the one to put forward a premise of anomolies, it is your responsibility to express those in enough detail so that others can respond. Fourth, your vitriolic responses show you to be unwilling to have any kind of discussion of the very questions you think you have asked.

I also concur with eriktheawful that -

. . . you've only been specific on 3 things in this thread:
1) The rocket plume of the lander, which has been addressed (but you claim that our sources can not be used or believed, which is the wikipedia)
2) That you are a revisonist when it comes to even recent history.
3) That you own a DVD set of the Apollo 10 mission.

Simply put, there cannot be any discussion if you don't tell us what you want to discuss.

reply to post by jra


Another major flaw is stars visible the background in some scenes when we know from experience on Earth never mind the Moon they would not be visible.

Originally posted by 1nquisitive





As for shadows, regarding Apollo 11, why do the astronauts shadows demonstrably lengthen as they move closer to the camera, and moreover why do they shorten as the astronauts move further away from the camera?

edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo

Could you please post a links for 2 pictures one away from the camera and one towards the camera to make it easy for you here is a link to all Apollo 11 images Apollo 11 images only 3 magazines have surface pictures with the Astronauts in them so what pictures are you taking about

Sorry guys I'm NOT participating any longer in this thread until I hopefully get some answers on why my last post for singled out for censorship.

Originally posted by golemina
Sorry guys I'm NOT participating any longer in this thread until I hopefully get some answers on why my last post for singled out for censorship.

edit on 25-1-2013 by golemina because: (no reason given)

Phew, thank god for that.

Speaking of this thread in general, it has turned into such a mess of blame-passing and name-calling, it makes me wanna puke.

Originally posted by golemina
Sorry guys I'm NOT participating any longer in this thread until I hopefully get some answers on why my last post for singled out for censorship.

edit on 25-1-2013 by golemina because: (no reason given)

Don't throw your toys out the pram just yet ask the mod why it was done it's happened to me a lot I am a straight talker at times as well but I take it on the chin and dont use it as an excuse to drop out.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by golemina

Let's rent some of the REAL WORLD optical systems 100 inch, 200 inch, Hubble anyone?

Why do you think the Hubble would help you?

From one of my posts earlier today.

The resolving power of the Hubble is 0.05 arc seconds or 0.0000138888888889 deg at the distance of the Moon that's about 305 ft.

Also how do you work out the Moons gravity as you claim it to be

I've seen this asked a lot in different ways:

"Why can't the Hubble Space Telescope see the moon landings?", "We have huge telescopes here on Earth, why can't they see the moon landings?"

More often than not the reasoning behind wondering this is due to the amazing detail that Hubble gives us in the images that it takes of other celestial objects that are much further away than the moon, so why can it not do the same thing for the moon?

The reason that it can't comes down to basic math. If you have two objects of the same size, but one is further away than the other, the one further away will look smaller, even though it is not really smaller.
A telescope is not a magnifying glass. It works differently because it has a mirror that gathers light and focuses it to a point on either an eye piece or a camera.

By knowing the size of the mirror, you can calculate the amount of resolution a telescope has, which is normally measured in arcseconds.
There are 3600 arcseconds in 1 degree. A full moon seen by you is 1800 arcseconds, so as big as it looks in the sky, it's only 1/2 a degree wide.

The formula R=11.6/D is used to figure out resolution, with R being the resolution in arcseconds and D being the diameter of the primary mirror.
Hubble's mirror is 2.4 meters wide, or 240 centimeters. 11.6/240 = 0.05
So Hubble's resolution is 0.05 arcseconds. That's a really good resolution. It means you could see a 6 foot wide object from 8000 feet away.

However, we have to take into account the size of an object and how far away it is. This will tell you if your telescope can see that object that is at that distance or not. The formula we use for that is:

(d/D)*206265=a

Where "d" is the diameter of the object. "D" is the distance of the object, and "a" is the size in arcseconds.

The bottom part of the LEM is about 4 meters. The distance to the moon is about 400,000,000 meters.

So:

(4/400,000,000)*206265=0.002

The LEM bottom would be around 0.002 arcseconds. So in other words: it's too small of an object too far away to be seen by Hubble due to the fact that Hubble's absolute minimum resolution is only 0.05 arcseconds.

The beautiful nebulas and galaxies we see in the Hubble images are much, much further away....but their size is also part of the equation: they are also LIGHTYEARS in size. So yes, they are further away from the moon, but their size is much, much, much bigger than the moon, and that helps determine the resolution.

If there was a huge football stadium on the moon, it would look like a dot to Hubble.

If you want Hubble to see the LEMs then you're going to need to change it's mirror out from the 2.4 meter one, to a mirror that is over 100 meters wide instead.

So why does the LRO see the LEMs?

Because it's orbiting the moon itself, and is much, much closer than Hubble. So even though it's mirror in it's telescopic equipment is much smaller than Hubbles, the fact that it's looking at that stuff from only tens of kilometers away changes everything.

So again: it all comes down to math.

reply to post by eriktheawful


I think I pretty much covered that in my 2 posts about the Hubble

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I think I pretty much covered that in my 2 posts about the Hubble

Yes you did.

I just wanted to show the math for it and how to figure out the size of an object in arcseconds and how you figure out a telescope's resolution is all.

reply to post by golemina

I'm curious... Exactly what do you think that 'signifies'?

As I said, it shows that there are no "anomalies" over an extremely large area of photographed terrain. Combined with parallax studies of the horizon, it pretty much proves that the photographs can only have been taken at a specific location on the Moon, not in a studio.

Why would anyone want to go to such great lengths in a Don Quixotic attempt to document the so-called 'landing sites'?

For one thing, metrologists can probably be placed somewhere in the DSM-IV next to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. They like everything to be nice and precise as possible. Once they have measured the exact distance of everything in the pictures to everything else, this data can be used to create a digital 3D map of the entire area. Using advanced graphic algorithms, you could create an artificial environment that you could explore wearing special glasses. You could visit a lunar landing sight by telepresence, and actually see where every dropped baggy or tool landed. I think that's pretty cool, don't you?

Maybe the astronauts that went to the moon should take polygraphs. I also heard that truth serum stuff works well too.

On second thought, those wouldn't work. There's probably evidence somewhere that the little green men gave fake memories to the astronauts.

This is all such a mess! I've been duped! Damn government and their lies. Is there anything I can believe?

Originally posted by golemina
Sorry guys I'm NOT participating any longer in this thread until I hopefully get some answers on why my last post for singled out for censorship.

edit on 25-1-2013 by golemina because: (no reason given)

The post I was whining about being removed has been reinstated.

Thank you Supermoderator DontTreadOnMe!


(I guess I'm back. )

Bad news for CaptainPudding.

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by golemina

 

We get it, the laws of physics and the confines of reality mean nothing to you. Please troll somewhere else, people are trying to have an actual, intelligent debate here.

This is ATS fellow...

This type of ad hominem is frowned on.

Me I don't care...

Cuz calling me a 'troll'... will just get you one of these:



And probably suggest that you've basically run out of cards to play my dear CaptainPudding.



As to the basic premise of the 'argument' you are pushing...

..people are trying to have an actual, intelligent debate here.

How can you possibly make ANY claim of this sort...

If you blatantly ignore the physics of the entire premise...

(

reply to post by golemina


So you complain about an ad homonym attack by righting you're own multi-paragraph ad homonym attack? You've already claimed yourself that you don't believe in the established laws of physics or reality, I was just reiterating what you posted.

What a sad world we live in when we get ten pages of rhetoric from a few people who probably don't even remember what the original topic is any more.
Wouldn't it make the world a much nicer place to be in if people with opposing views could stop squabbling like kids a fraction of their age and say "I think you're wrong but I respect that and recognise you as my equal" rather than treating them like a naughty puppy that's just crapped on the carpet.
I lived through the whole thing and heard and saw all this stuff first hand.I'm not a sheeple and I'm not brainwashed so I'm able to process all the information relating to this subject and make up my own mind about it.
The point of this topic (as some people seem to have forgotten) is about a guy who makes films giving us some information and proving it with maths that with the technology available back in the late 1960s it couldn't have been used to fake the moon landings.I choose to believe what he says as it gives me the science behind what I already know to be true,as I choose to believe everything NASA told us is true and 12 American astronauts have walked on our moon.
I can debunk without looking it up about 2/3 of what passes as "shocking evidence of a hoax" without even having to think about it,but I don't look down on people from a lofty tower and treat them as less intelligent just because they see things differently from me.

Originally posted by Imagewerx
Wouldn't it make the world a much nicer place to be in if people with opposing views could stop squabbling like kids a fraction of their age and say "I think you're wrong but I respect that and recognise you as my equal" rather than treating them like a naughty puppy that's just crapped on the carpet.

I've had a few 'can't we all get along' posts on ATS myself haha

I've come to the conclusion that no, it probably won't make a difference. When a person has a strong negative belief about people that some would call heroes, there is going to be a disconnect. They're not going to see each other as equals. Both sides think the other is equally gullible.

I don't look down on people from a lofty tower and treat them as less intelligent just because they see things differently from me.

Keep it up, it won't go unnoticed by the less angry persons that read your posts. Though I wouldn't expect a single poster to change their approach based on your words today.

There are a few 'middle of the road' posters though I wouldn't rule out. A number of persons just get upset at one liners or badly presented vague cases. I think it's slightly different from treating everyone like morons.

Originally posted by Imagewerx
I can debunk without looking it up about 2/3 of what passes as "shocking evidence of a hoax" without even having to think about it,but I don't look down on people from a lofty tower and treat them as less intelligent just because they see things differently from me.

You can debunk it but instead you choose to write that dribble? So is that all you have?

reply to post by PsykoOps

No I have plenty more,but as all this stuff has already be done to death 700 kerzillion times there's no point me going over it again.I don't have the time to sit down on here for hours at a time writing stuff that will be read by people with closed minds.