Notices
Results 1 to 57 of 57

Thread: conspiracy theory

  1. #1 conspiracy theory 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    wirral, england
    Posts
    59
    i would like to know peoples views on the moonlanding and the conspiracy theories surrounding it. im new to this forum, i apologise if this is old hat, and dont mind moving it to general discussion if recommended.
    my personal point of view is the whole thing is believeable, apart from the footprints in the dust. the amount of thrust needed to land the pod vertically would have blown any dust away for miles with the lack of atmosphere. that reason alone does it for me.


    be nice im new
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: conspiracy theory 
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by beats666
    i would like to know peoples views on the moonlanding and the conspiracy theories surrounding it. .
    We got some good science out of the moon landings aswell as the achievement of landing on another planetary body . The latter is BUNK AND EVERY CONSPIRACY MYTH CAN be more than adequetly explained with a little scientific knowledge.


    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    wirral, england
    Posts
    59
    ive seen a few documentaries for and against the landings, on one a russian cosmonaut even stated they were glad they lost the race and pulled out because they knew the van allen belt would have killed them, but ive recently read 1mm of lead can protect you against the radiation, you can even avoid it altogether if you take off in the right place. so we can take what we see on the box with a pinch of salt, im big enough to make up my own mind. but there is the dust that helped make the very first footstep, and the force needed to land the pod vertically, i just cant see there being any dust.
    be nice im new
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Guest
    Most evidence I've seen for "conspiracy" is ridiculous. If you ever see any evidence you can't refute, just google around. Someone will have done it for you. With actual science as opposed to "HOW CONVENIENT!!!".

    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

    And there's one for the 911 "conspiracy".

    As for the footprints on the moon...what are you referring to specifically? The pictures of footprints where taken quite a while ago. And when a lander lands, it doesn't kick up dust for "miles around". That's ridiculous. It assumes there is enough air resistance on the moon to cause surrounding areas to be blown (you're applying earth conditions to the moon).

    On the moon, the landing could fly right past you and you wouldn't be blown back (and moon landings aren't vertical). If you're talking about the thrust specifically moving the dust...it doesn't blow it up for miles around. What it would do is scatter it in some areas I believe, but nothing further. Then again I'm not fully briefed on landing procedure or technique.

    One thing about the moon landing is that it's a literal MIRACLE we made it. We didn't know how dangerous space was at the time, and so many things could have gone wrong. What it was? It was pure dumb luck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by beats666
    ive seen a few documentaries for and against the landings, on one a russian cosmonaut even stated they were glad they lost the race and pulled out because they knew the van allen belt would have killed them, but ive recently read 1mm of lead can protect you against the radiation, you can even avoid it altogether if you take off in the right place. so we can take what we see on the box with a pinch of salt, im big enough to make up my own mind. but there is the dust that helped make the very first footstep, and the force needed to land the pod vertically, i just cant see there being any dust.
    The dust is what is know as regolith and is basically differing sized(micro metres to mm in size) fragments of rock and congealed glass globuals left from lunar impacts. tHIS creates a soil that can hold the form of a footprint.

    As for the vertical landing, I dont see the problem . Can you clarify what you mean, taking into account that he moon has 1/6 gravity and no more than a fleeting atmosphere.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman Warpboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    16
    Most conspiracies are created by over-analyzing the data at hand. As the moon conspiracy goes, I do not see enough cumulative evidence to suggest that it was truly a conspiracy. I suggest you check out the following:

    Scienta Vos Liberatis
    "Mistakes are the portals of discovery." -- James Joyce
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    wirral, england
    Posts
    59
    this is great. i know the pictures of the footprints were taken a while ago, they were taken in 1969. surely there is"less" resistance on the moon because theres only one sixth our gravity. the vertical landing is pertinent because the thrust required to stop the lander crashing to the ground would be enough to send the dust, immaterial of its compound, far and wide, moreso than on earth because there is less frictional loss, i am more than happy to accept man went to the moon, but surely hes got to prove he did.
    be nice im new
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i recently read Andrew Smith's 'Moon dust' where the author interviews as many of the surviving moon walkers as he could find (funny enough he didn't interview Michael Jackson) - whenever the subject of the moonlanding conspiracy is raised, their common reaction is to roll their eyes, implying that you can't argue with someone who's convinced of a conspiracy (except for Buzz Aldrin, he's more likely to punch you)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    wirral, england
    Posts
    59
    ive just read the article on the footprints in the dust, but my arguement is that the dust shouldnt have been there in the first place because it would most certainly have been displaced by the thrusters.
    be nice im new
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by beats666
    thrust required to stop the lander crashing to the ground would be enough to send the dust, immaterial of its compound, far and wide, moreso than on earth because there is less frictional loss,.
    Who or what says the dust didnt do this?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremnyhfht
    As for the footprints on the moon...what are you referring to specifically? The pictures of footprints where taken quite a while ago. And when a lander lands, it doesn't kick up dust for "miles around". That's ridiculous. It assumes there is enough air resistance on the moon to cause surrounding areas to be blown (you're applying earth conditions to the moon).
    This is definitely a big blunder on the part of the conspiracy theorists. You only kick up dust for miles around if your thrust is creating a lot of pressure in the surrounding atmosphere. The pressure spreads the effect.

    On the moon, there's no atmosphere to create pressure in. Each particle thrown out by the thrusters goes straight down with no detours, and while some dust would be kicked up for a moment, it would only be the dust located exactly directly below the thrusters, and it would fall back down immediately. (Not drift around in the air, like it does on earth because .........again....... there's no air to drift around in)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    One thing about the moon landing is that it's a literal MIRACLE we made it. We didn't know how dangerous space was at the time, and so many things could have gone wrong. What it was? It was pure dumb luck.
    Usually, "luck" doesn't happen. That's why it's called "luck". If a theory requires you to believe that the laws of probability were temporarily suspended, or that our side won the lottery......... then the burden of evidence shifts.

    Whichever side is making all the luck claims is the one that needs to be providing all the evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i read somewhere that if a risk analysis had been done on the facts as they are known now, NASA in its current more risk-averse incarnation would not have sent anyone to the moon

    seeing the many things that could have gone wrong, it really is a miracle that only Apollo 13 had a mishap
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Again with the miracles.......

    How many missions did we do? Only 11 and 13 are really all that famous. Didn't we go up to like 17?

    If it was a miracle, it probably wouldn't have happened. The odds of a mishap were probably only around 10% or so. Radiation sounds like the most dangerous part, but even if you get hit by a goodly amount of it, you've still only got only so large a chance of dying.

    Back then, they only sent Airforce pilots up. They're in the business of risking their life for the benefit of their country. I think it's mostly because of the challenger mission, where an honest to goodness civilian got killed, that they've really had pressure on them to be extra careful.

    .......... and that takes all the fun out of it, so no more good TV ratings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Back then, they only sent Airforce pilots up.
    Here is a list of Apollo crews who landed on the moon, along with their military affiliation.
    Neil Armstrong Civilian
    Buzz Aldrin US Airforce
    Pete Conrad US Navy
    Alan Bean US Navy
    Alan Shepard US Navy
    Edgar Mitchell US Navy
    David Scott US Airforce
    James Irwin US Airforce
    John Young US Navy
    Charles Duke US Airforce
    Eugene Cernan US Navy
    Harrison Schmitt Civilian

    Now, I know what you meant, but out of deference to the Navy boys I think you should retract the remark that NASA only sent Airforce pilots. 8)

    beats666. If you watch and listen to footage of the landing you will hear the remark, moments before touchdown, "kicking up dust", and you will see it very plainly in the film. However, with no atmosphere to suspend it and no wind to carry it away, the dust pretty much settled back down to where it had been. Kojax has made this point already, but it bears repeating because it wholly answers your point, I think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    wirral, england
    Posts
    59
    well thanks everyone for your comments i admit there was a lack of understanding with the dust problem, which seem to have been cleared up, i was surprised there was only me out there with any doubt, but there you go, ill gladly read any more comments anyone would like to make.
    be nice im new
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    I also was concerned about conspiracy on the moon landing issue. What was done with images, I figured, was probably
    simply some cosmetics to making them look better and more sensational, I wouldn't really mind that. We all do love
    it, right?

    I thought about if it was possible such a long way, and back in the '60, like that. But, it's about computers I think. There
    was a course set, and it's flying automatically. Kind of drawing an ever straight line for thousands of miles, or in any other
    shape you want it to be.being.

    Probably, NASA has had radio data transmission back then, and so has been able to even alter the programming, and
    that made landing on the moon possible. Chances at least are pretty good for it's truly happened, I would say.

    The technology was so advanced, respectively the appliance thereof, even today it's not done no where else as for my
    knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    technology advanced ? i think the LEM had something like 64kB computer on board, far less than would fit on a basic floppy
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    wirral, england
    Posts
    59
    yes i think it would be todays equivelant of a basic calculator was responsible for taking them up there. id still like it to be faked i think, if just for the reason my mother in law said "it must be true i seen it on the telly". it would shut her up. my response was"well i seen predator on the telly!" not a very mature response i know.
    be nice im new
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Computers back in those days didnt have frivolous memory consumers like graphical displays and user interfaces. It was just pure machine code in and pure code out.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Guest
    Interestingly enough, I've had numerous well-educated people in the varying computer fields agree that the computers back then were perfectly capable of the trip. The only difficulty they would have had was with landing (if you'll read up, that's just where they had difficulty). The rest is just simple calculations that didn't stress them whatsoever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Interestingly enough, I've had numerous well-educated people in the varying computer fields agree that the computers back then were perfectly capable of the trip. The only difficulty they would have had was with landing (if you'll read up, that's just where they had difficulty). The rest is just simple calculations that didn't stress them whatsoever.
    Thats what I mean, basically. They don't had to be as advanced as todays operating programs or there like, I thing. But tzhey could have
    kept the space vehicle on track, flying it automatically, even with likely interrupted sight towards to the destination (whatsoever ).

    Landing on the moon self could have been done manually, again, I guess. That simply also holds some kind of psychological aspects, as
    the fact, that no one except astronauts (cosmonauts :-) as well ) are probably used to that kind of procedures. Your computer at home
    has not to fly around, it's a statinary item. Thus, interaction of hardware and its programming were not as advance as if the computer had
    to be moved by some means, and their programming or would move itself. Its simply the lack motion or the lack of the neccesity to
    program hardware towards a certain goal.

    When I remember driving the Oldsmobile true 3 states in the US, it did about all itself, but not steering and applying the brakes. I mean
    this kind of procedures have not have any impact so far on technologies used out off space programs making it so mysterious.

    Again, I don't think you would have to use some outstanding, fancy stuff in terms of computers memory and things like that. Just to keep
    the vehicle pointed towards the moon, and having the doors well sealed, of course.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    advertising hyperspace
    Posts
    149
    What you are look-look-look-ing for, you are not willing to interpret...........leave what you guys do, in style, to terror-terror-terror-ists............

    you want jewels of opinion???????

    what does hollywood da-da-da-MAN-ddddd OF THE scientific community?

    OK, excuse my "disorientation"........who's giving the speech.......one day........because it;s like we're all in a foyer............like, is it going to be HAWKING........WHO...........advertisers have a riiiiiiiiighttttttt to know!

    Do scientists imagine themselves as THE ONE, or do they have enough respect to know who the ONE is?

    The 1 (nnnnnnnnnnnnnn).........to answer what none of you are serious about answering...........

    "what will your G-U-T leader look like"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Are you escaped somewhere, somehow? I'm serious asking. Or too much of the A-Team? Col. Decker? Ever heard of him?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    I once heard that there was a theory going around about the Moon landings, that apparently some people believed we never went to the Moon, and that all the images and video were made using (get this) an anti-gravity device we stole from aliens.

    ...

    Okay, yeah, that sounds more plausible than firing a rocket into a Moon. Seriously, can't we hunt these people down and sterilize them or something?

    Honestly, though, the most plausible theory I've ever heard of "fake" Moon landings was that NASA goofed and the project got set back, so the first Moon landing was faked as a way of buying more time.

    Although I still believe even that is total crap, it's more believable than "anti-gravity devices stolen from space aliens."

    I wonder why some people think it's so impossible for someone to have gone to the Moon? Even if you ignore the historical facts and events...the technology, physics, and capabilities of the US space program, were certainly capable of doing the deed. I don't understand why it's so hard to believe.

    Don't people have anything better to do with their time and brain matter?
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Don't people have anything better to do with their time and brain matter?
    it's a warped sort of (in)credulity - it's totally incredible that people landed on the moon, but it's perfectly OK to believe in alien abductions
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    it's a warped sort of (in)credulity - it's totally incredible that people landed on the moon, but it's perfectly OK to believe in alien abductions
    Sometimes I think we should cram all those people in a rocket and dump them on the Moon. Give them just enough air to say "Huh."
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Dont you guys find it wonderful that we did something they said we couldn't ?and still interrogate in retrospect? This was also an achievement that was for the good of advancement not for destruction .

    To you Bible buffs: Perhaps good can prevail from evil after all!
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    To you Bible buffs...
    Please don't start a religious flame in here....We all know how tiring they can be.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    My apolgies if you felt that way.


    I prefer to think of it as accommodating the more stupi......oops! I mean the religious.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Okay, yeah, that sounds more plausible than firing a rocket into a Moon. Seriously, can't we hunt these people down and sterilize them or something?

    Honestly, though, the most plausible theory I've ever heard of "fake" Moon landings was that NASA goofed and the project got set back, so the first Moon landing was faked as a way of buying more time.

    Although I still believe even that is total crap, it's more believable than "anti-gravity devices stolen from space aliens."

    I wonder why some people think it's so impossible for someone to have gone to the Moon? Even if you ignore the historical facts and events...the technology, physics, and capabilities of the US space program, were certainly capable of doing the deed. I don't understand why it's so hard to believe.

    Don't people have anything better to do with their time and brain matter?
    I think it just comes from people who genuinely don't believe in their government or maybe just in other human beings in general.

    I mean, paranoia, if it comes from personal life experiences, maybe authority figures you've trusted who didn't deliver (like a few preachers that have been getting charged with child molestation), doesn't necessarily mean bad genetics.

    I get what you're saying, though. Why attack something that there's little or no evidence to believe against? We've got plenty of more productive things in life to be directing that kind of cynicism toward.

    I bet a lot of these people are the same kind of suckers who fall for those lottery scams (where they tell you you won the lottery but they need a special "processing fee" up front).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Maybe so, but don't you think it's a far stretch to go from "government mistrust" to "stolen super-technology from aliens"?

    Although I will admit that anyone who blindly believes the government is a fool. There's never been, nor ever will be, a truly honest democracy. There is too much need for half-ways and compensations for the government to be "pure of heart." So there's probably always going to be some modicum of falsehood in everything. That's just the way things are.

    So that probably means not all of the Moon mission history is true...but you'd have to really find a battleship worth of hard-steel facts to disprove what we did.

    And let's not forget that the same thinking used by many Moon-mission conspiracy buffs, can be used to bunk nearly every piece of history on the planet. That's a downward spiral of stupidity I'd rather avoid with every grain of common sense I possess...
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Apropos cynicism, see what a nice huge gash. It's a post landing shot of the shuttle, it' said, as it looks
    reaching all the way down to the shuttles body the tiles normally should protect.

    Was it fixed in space and the filler went lost on re entry? I seemingly missed this one.

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...n_07pd2305.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Apropos cynicism, see what a nice huge gash. It's a post landing shot of the shuttle, it' said, as it looks
    reaching all the way down to the shuttles body the tiles normally should protect.

    Was it fixed in space and the filler went lost on re entry? I seemingly missed this one.

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...n_07pd2305.jpg
    Not really sure how this relates to the topic, but it was partially patched in space. The fault was deemed not significant enough to cause significant risk during re-entry.

    I don't think a full report has been issued yet. The shuttle landed only a few days ago.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    There might also some conspiracy taking effect, in blowing up space shuttles. A secret department of NASA fooling us
    about alleged advancements. This was the ultimate method to cranking money off the governments back.

    You know, when the moon landing was yet fake, lot's of folks within NASA will have no idea, meaning, 'Oh sure that's
    not as bad as to lie about landing on the moon.' Let's blow up some shuttle. Like that. Maybe. However there are such
    kinds of ambitions within such agencies resulting in errors like the weather being too cold to keeping everything sealed
    up, and, therefore, ending in a disaster. There was no other clue cause many say the more expensive, the better, or
    saver.

    But truly hundreds of millions are being spend, and a seal to cost about some cents doesn't keep up. That's not about
    money but about the whole structure of enterprises like that,.stemming from, partly, not to research, but from
    interpreting nature.

    As an sample, in aviation, in the last decades, the mentality switched from, it had to cause of deadly fatalities, one,
    the flight captain, has the last word, the supreme command on board of an airplane towards everyone was being involved
    in decision making to determine the faith of the airplane, the crew, the passengers. The cockpit crew I mean, mainly.

    It's like moving away from structures of a maritime origin to facing the real situation. As long as there was but a pilot
    and a captain on board of airplanes, the situation will not never change cause of the real facts. The captain will have to
    decide at the end cause of his superior rank. As long as there are not two pilots an board of an airplane no one should
    get on board of a plane cause there is a no way out situation costing the lives of air travelers. The effect will be 'huuch,
    now the chances are worse we get killed while flying to some place (we already know what we have to face otherwise),
    let's stay home', which, then, saves fuel. I'm kidding, but situations are like that. Not sure if it was to far off topic. But,
    also to have one captain on board of airplanes could be due to conspiracy. It's everywhere. Oh my god, THEY ARE
    ABOUT TO KILL ALL OF US.

    As an sample, in aviation, in the last decades, the mentality switched from, it had to cause of deadly fatalities, one,
    the flight captain has the last word the supreme command, on board of an airplane towards everyone is being involved
    in decisions to determine the faith of the airplane, the crew, the passengers.

    Its liking moving away from structures of a maritime origin to facing the real situation. As long as there was but a pilot
    and a captain on board of airplanes, the situation will not never change cause of the real facts. The captain will have to
    decide at the end cause of his superior rank. As long as there are not two pilots an board of an airplane no one should
    get on board of a plane cause there is a no way out situation costing the lives of air travelers. The effect will be 'huuch,
    now the chances are worse we get killed while flying to some place (we already know what we have to face otherwise),
    let's stay home', which, then, saves fuel. I'm kidding, but situations are like that. not sure if it was to far off topic. But,
    also to have one captain on board of airplanes could be due to conspiracy. It's everywhere. Oh my god, THEY ARE
    ABOUT TO KILL ALL OF US.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    wirral, england
    Posts
    59
    he he you guys you kill me
    be nice im new
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by beats666
    he he you guys you kill me
    I won't, well, I guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Nah, go ahead. He's all yours.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    You are so sweet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Supposing Spy satelites can read a cars license plate on earth, cant the biggest telescope photograph on of the various lunar modual remains.

    (I know tinfoil hats would say that such a photo was a fake, but for the rest of us it would be a cool photo)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    Supposing Spy satelites can read a cars license plate on earth, cant the biggest telescope photograph on of the various lunar modual remains.
    Spy satellites cant read license plates though.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    Supposing Spy satelites can read a cars license plate on earth, cant the biggest telescope photograph on of the various lunar modual remains. (I know tinfoil hats would say that such a photo was a fake, but for the rest of us it would be a cool photo)
    Currently, optical capabilities for research telescopes are capable of resolving objects a little bit smaller than a basketball on the surface of the moon. Footprints being much smaller, and hard to see anyway, are as yet impossible to see. They're probably not even visible on images taken by the highest grade instruments available to humanity (though those wouldn't be releasable).

    There's probably a better chance of spotting some of the larger artifacts left behind, such as the Moon rover tracks, or the landing sections of the surface modules.

    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Spy satellites cant read license plates though.
    Literal bugger! :P

    They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading. Be afraid!...Then get over it...
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf

    They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading. Be afraid!...Then get over it...
    What??? have you been reading? They cant dude! The smallest they can resolve is in the metres. What knowledge of optics do you have?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Ever try Google Earth? I'm not sure how much of that is satellites and how much of it is compiled aerial photos, though.

    I wouldn't be too surprised if they were able to do serious analysis on the newspaper you're holding and figure out what issue it is, but I'm pretty sure they're not just going to be able to look at the photo and read the headlines with their eyes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    wirral, england
    Posts
    59
    surely we have powerful enough telescopes to see the moons surface very clearly, has anyone ever tried, sucessfully or unsucessfully to observe any remnants of a lunar landing. the moon is vast yes, but we know the landing site, and a shiny object reflecting the sun like a mirror would be easy to spot amidst all the dull grey i would have thought, especially if you know where to look.
    be nice im new
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf

    They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading. Be afraid!...Then get over it...
    What??? have you been reading? The cant dude! The smallest they caresolve is in the metres. What knowledge of optics do you have?
    KH-13 satellites are supposed to have resolutions between 10 and 4 centimeters with a 4 meter mirror. Another issue would be how useful are such high resolutions...

    But even commercial satellites can get resolutions below the meter. The Quickbird commercial satellite has got a resolution of 60 centimeters in panchromatic mode, fai. 8)
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf

    They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading. Be afraid!...Then get over it...
    What??? have you been reading? They cant dude! The smallest they can resolve is in the metres. What knowledge of optics do you have?
    KH-13 satellites are supposed to have resolutions between 10 and 4 centimeters with a 4 meter mirror. Another issue would be how useful are such high resolutions...

    But even commercial satellites can get resolutions below the meter. The Quickbird commercial satellite has got a resolution of 60 centimeters in panchromatic mode, fai. 8)
    Between 10 and 4 centimetres isnt a letter on a number plate!

    You cant fricken resolve a number plate from orbit without something like a 100 metre parabolic.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf

    They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading. Be afraid!...Then get over it...
    What??? have you been reading? The cant dude! The smallest they caresolve is in the metres. What knowledge of optics do you have?
    KH-13 satellites are supposed to have resolutions between 10 and 4 centimeters with a 4 meter mirror. Another issue would be how useful are such high resolutions...

    But even commercial satellites can get resolutions below the meter. The Quickbird commercial satellite has got a resolution of 60 centimeters in panchromatic mode, fai. 8)
    Between 10 and 4 centimetres isnt a letter on a number plate!

    You cant fricken resolve a number plate from orbit without something like a 100 metre parabolic.
    And what about your claim that "the smallest they caresolve is in the metres"? :wink:
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf

    They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading. Be afraid!...Then get over it...
    What??? have you been reading? They cant dude! The smallest they can resolve is in the metres. What knowledge of optics do you have?
    KH-13 satellites are supposed to have resolutions between 10 and 4 centimeters with a 4 meter mirror. Another issue would be how useful are such high resolutions...

    But even commercial satellites can get resolutions below the meter. The Quickbird commercial satellite has got a resolution of 60 centimeters in panchromatic mode, fai. 8)
    Between 10 and 4 centimetres isnt a letter on a number plate!

    You cant fricken resolve a number plate from orbit without something like a 100 metre parabolic.
    And what about your claim that "the smallest they caresolve is in the metres"? :wink:
    Oh fuck off
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf

    They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading. Be afraid!...Then get over it...
    What??? have you been reading? The cant dude! The smallest they caresolve is in the metres. What knowledge of optics do you have?
    KH-13 satellites are supposed to have resolutions between 10 and 4 centimeters with a 4 meter mirror. Another issue would be how useful are such high resolutions...

    But even commercial satellites can get resolutions below the meter. The Quickbird commercial satellite has got a resolution of 60 centimeters in panchromatic mode, fai. 8)
    Between 10 and 4 centimetres isnt a letter on a number plate!

    You cant fricken resolve a number plate from orbit without something like a 100 metre parabolic.
    That would be problematic for Hubble then, too, wouldn't it? I never really considered that, even though Hubble doesn't have to deal with the atmosphere like ground based telescopes, it also doesn't have any huge mirrors.

    Mind you, I really doubt Nasa is going to turn Hubble on the Moon just to clear this up. They seem to be having too much trouble with its gyroscopes wearing out and such to waste valuable viewing time confirming the Moon landing. Besides, even if they did use it for this, people would just claim the images were faked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf

    They can resolve them though. They also have optics capable of resolving what newspaper you're reading. Be afraid!...Then get over it...
    What??? have you been reading? The cant dude! The smallest they caresolve is in the metres. What knowledge of optics do you have?
    KH-13 satellites are supposed to have resolutions between 10 and 4 centimeters with a 4 meter mirror. Another issue would be how useful are such high resolutions...

    But even commercial satellites can get resolutions below the meter. The Quickbird commercial satellite has got a resolution of 60 centimeters in panchromatic mode, fai. 8)
    Between 10 and 4 centimetres isnt a letter on a number plate!

    You cant fricken resolve a number plate from orbit without something like a 100 metre parabolic.
    That would be problematic for Hubble then, too, wouldn't it? I never really considered that, even though Hubble doesn't have to deal with the atmosphere like ground based telescopes, it also doesn't have any huge mirrors.

    Mind you, I really doubt Nasa is going to turn Hubble on the Moon just to clear this up. They seem to be having too much trouble with its gyroscopes wearing out and such to waste valuable viewing time confirming the Moon landing. Besides, even if they did use it for this, people would just claim the images were faked.
    Now Hubble pointing at the moon definitely could only resolve in the metres.

    If people have no knowledge of optical resolution. I recommend people look at some of the images we have of the solar system, before they believe these myths that contemporary probes or satellites can resolve anything.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by beats666
    surely we have powerful enough telescopes to see the moons surface very clearly, .
    You would be wrong. The moon is 1/4 million miles away. Have you any idea of the massive radius of aperture you would need to resolve the detail of the remains of the lunar landing sites from that distance?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,070
    [quote="kojax
    That would be problematic for Hubble then, too, wouldn't it? I never really considered that, even though Hubble doesn't have to deal with the atmosphere like ground based telescopes, it also doesn't have any huge mirrors.

    [/quote]

    The Hubble has a resolution of .1 arcsec (1/36000 of a degree) At 384,000 km, the distance of the Moon, it would be able to resolve objects no smaller than 186 meters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus

    The Hubble has a resolution of .1 arcsec (1/36000 of a degree) At 384,000 km, the distance of the Moon, it would be able to resolve objects no smaller than 186 meters.
    Indeed. Assuming Janus's figures are correct(they sound about right), that would mean a 10 km optical diameter would still only resolve 2cm from the earth to the moon. I guess you could be reasonably certain that you could then image the lunar landing sites with that baby.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    I love hearing that some people think Google-Earth images represent the pinnacle of imaging technology today. It's good to know someone thinks the government relies on Google-Earth for its operations.

    And I'd have to agree, a single telescope with a single mirror, that's using technology as old and public as Hubble's, would have trouble finding a car in a mall parking lot.

    Don't worry, though. Publicly releasable imaging technology is identical to the equipment used by the NRO...so s'all good. </sarcasm>
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    I love hearing that some people think Google-Earth images represent the pinnacle of imaging technology today. It's good to know someone thinks the government relies on Google-Earth for its operations.

    And I'd have to agree, a single telescope with a single mirror, that's using technology as old and public as Hubble's, would have trouble finding a car in a mall parking lot.

    Don't worry, though. Publicly releasable imaging technology is identical to the equipment used by the NRO...so s'all good. </sarcasm>
    Please elaborate on what you're suggesting we have in regards to non-single mirror optics up there?

    $500billion Space interferometers are years off! even for NASA.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    The Hubble has a resolution of .1 arcsec (1/36000 of a degree) At 384,000 km, the distance of the Moon, it would be able to resolve objects no smaller than 186 meters.
    Are you sure those figures are taking the lack of atmospheric interference into account? Or maybe atmospheric interference isn't really an issue. I'm not prepared to do that math on those numbers just now. I'd have to fire up Excel, and then remember how to do everything... :x
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Google Earth is based upon hybrid imaging. It uses satellite imaging of commercial low resolution (usually Landsat 6/7 imagery at 15 meters per pixel) and aerial ortophotography where available at a resolution of 1 meter per pixel or better.

    Most imagery on Google Earth is >3 years old, btw.

    And as I said above, the best commercial satellite imagery available is at 60 centimeters per pixel.
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •