Science > Physics > Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some....
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nomen Nescio" |
| Date: |
17 Nov 2007 10:50:03 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, IbeDavid <norman706@gmail.com> wrote:
Ive seen a few DVD's on the reasons why we didnt, read a few articles,
been to websites, and watched a few compelling YouTube Documentary
Videos on the topic. Im pretty troubled on a few things. In
particular : 1. The brick visible with a 'c' inscribed on it . 2.
The USA flag being blown around when theres no atmosphere on the
moon. 3. No very deep marks left on the moons surface upon take off
from the ships jets. 4. The Allen belt with severe radiation that
theyd have to pass thru. 5. The shadow discrepancies and lighting. 6.
And no visible stars from the moons surface. And.. a few others too.
I think its very possible that the U.S. Government at the time duped
us and the rest of the watching world by sending up the SpaceCraft but
just had it circle the earth a few times before it returned to
earth...with all the great 'moon shots' being cleverly shot in the
desert. If youve researched this topic thoroughly, what do you
conclude ? Thanks,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This subject's has been beaten to death. I saw some links earlier
this month (see below), only to discover there are _hundreds_ of
videos analyzing Big Brother's "NASA" film footage & photographs
right down to the gnat's *****! BB's so-called "manned moon shots"
were absolutely definitely hoaxed. Only the delusional Atheists
& other fundamentalist fanatics always believe everything their
Anti-Christian Atheist Government tells them to believe without
question. America really is infested by the most badly-educated,
brainwashed, weak-minded pussified milquetoasts on planet Earth.
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007, Hobo <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> wrote:
Apollo Moon Hoax? Dr. David Groves Analysis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
Apollo Moon Hoax? Spotlights, Fall-off, Camera Angles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc
Apollo Moon Hoax? Sun or Spotlight?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA
Nearly *four decades* have elapsed since 1969, thirty-five
years since 1972. The Apollo missions were all unmanned as
the evidence shows. A mere few hundred miles above sealevel
is as far above Earth's surface that JPL/NASA's "horseless"
carriages have ever been. Every "manned" moon landing back
in covered-wagon times was nothing but cold-war propaganda
for the unsuspecting masses...as the evidence demonstrates.
It's a proven fact NASA's six allegedly-manned half-million
miles per round-trip(!) missions to the Moon (1969-72) were
at best unmanned flights in competition with the U.S.S.R.'s
contemporaneous Soviet Luna/Lunakhod unmanned Moon missions.
"They couldn't make it so they faked it." Thus, the "manned"
portions of the missions were actually filmed under the top-
secret, heavily-guarded domed soundstages in the high desert
of Area 51, NV, perhaps around Pine Gap, AUS and maybe other
remote and publicly-inaccessible locations around the world.
Flags fluttering in the high-desert breeze, sand
buggies & actors running along in their deflated
monkeysuits-obviously recorded on highspeed film,
conspicuous absence of blast craters, impossibly
silent running under invisible exhaust emissions,
brazenly obvious backdrops which contrast sharply
against the nearby high-desert terrain ad nauseam
The Moon is far beyond the reach of manned spacecraft, to wit:
ALTITUDE COMPARISON CHART
SHUTTLE VS. MOON & MANMADE SATELLITES
(not to scale)
x------Moon's mean geocentric distance ~239,000 miles---x
| |
| |
| |
| |
~ ~214,000 MILES ~
~ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ~
| |
| |
| |
x------High-altitude orbit ~25,000+ miles altitude------x
| |
x------Geostationary orbit ~22,300 miles altitude-------x
| |
| |
~ ~10,000 MILES ~
~ ~
| |
x------Mid-altitude orbit ~12,500 miles altitude--------x
| |
| |
~ ~10,000 MILES ~
~ ~
| |
x------Low-altitude orbit below ~1200 miles altitude----x
x------JPL/NASA Space Shuttle orbit ~300 miles altitude-x
x------Intl. Space Station orbit ~220 miles altitude |
x------Earth's sea level -0- miles altitude-------------x
To give you an idea of the scale involved, if each hard line
break in the chart below equals roughly 10,000 miles, to wit:
x------Moon's mean geocentric distance ~239,000 miles---x
| 230,000 |
| 220,000 |
| 210,000 |
| 200,000 |
| 190,000 |
| 180,000 |
| 170,000 |
| 160,000 |
| 150,000 |
| 140,000 |
| 130,000 |
| 120,000 |
| 110,000 |
| 100,000 |
| 90,000 |
| 80,000 |
| 70,000 |
| 60,000 |
| 50,000 |
| 40,000 |
| 30,000 |
x------Geostationary orbit ~22,300 miles altitude-------x
x------Mid-altitude orbit ~12,500 miles altitude--------x
x------Low-altitude orbit below ~1200 miles altitude----x
Thus the low-earth shuttle orbit would fit somewhere between
the center and baseline of the bottom 'x'--hardly visible at
all at this scale. And yet, that is the highest altitude any
manned flight has ever successfully sustained for any length
of time. But the "men to the moon" fairytale devotees don't
want to face up to these and other glaring facts in evidence:
*Altitude Comparison Chart of Shuttle vs. Moon & Manmade Satellites:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=A82FLEI038814.6969560185@anonymous.poster
*Apollo Moon Missions 1969-1972 Were At Best *Unmanned*:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=VTKA4X1O37500.9704861111@Gilgamesh-frog.org
*Quasi-Uncensored Apollo Moon Hoax Bookmarks:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7RL5KJIX37499.1691435185@Gilgamesh-frog.org
______________________________________________________________
Remember, because this particular evidence regarding the laser
reflectors (which are indisputably on the surface of the Moon)
has been repeatedly cited as "proof" that living human beings
have actually been to the Moon and back (i.e., only by badly-
educated cowards who were duped by NASA's propaganda machine),
but were in reality *unmanned* missions at best that occurred
nearly FOUR DECADES ago, I'll briefly address this issue one
more time for the benefit of conscientious lurkers out there:
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spacecraft/lunakhod.html
"Lunokhod 1 was the first successful Soviet remote-
controlled moon rover that was carried to the Moon
by Luna 17. It was launched November 10, 1970. The
rover had eight wheels.
"The Luna 17 spacecraft landed on the moon on November
17, 1970. Lunokhod 1 weighed just under 2,000 pounds
and was designed to operate for 90 days while guided
by a 5-person team. Lunokhod 1 explored the Mare
Imbrium for 11 months and traveled 11km and relayed
television pictures and scientific data.
Lunokhod 2 moon rover was an improved version of
Lunokhod 1. It was carried to the moon on Luna 21
and landed on January 16, 1973. Lunokhod 2 was faster
and carried an additional television camera. It
travelled 37km in only 8 weeks." [end quote]
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Luna/Lunokhod1.htm
"Lunokhod 1 went to the Moon aboard Luna 17. Its
eight wire-mesh wheels each has its own electric
motor to allow manoeuvring in tight spaces, and so
failure of a single motor did not prevent it from
moving.
The lidded box at the left is a French-built laser
reflector. It was used to reflect back to Earth a
laser beam, making it possible to measure the
distance between the Earth and Moon to an accuracy
of twenty to thirty centimetres" [end quote]
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Luna/Lunokhod2.htm
"There is an additional high-level TV camera for
panoramic photography, and all lenses have
improved sunshades.
The small silver box between the front wheels is
an alpha particle emitter which can be lowered
onto the Moon to measure soil composition. Like
its predecessor, Lunokhod 2 carries a French
retro-reflector for use with a laser beam
transmitted from Earth. It allows the Earth-Moon
distance to be measured to an accuracy around 20
centimetres.
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Luna/Luna16.htm
"the cone-shaped antenna keeps communication with
Earth while the drill arm sits in its rest position
on the right. The sample will be taken by rotating
the drill head by one hundred and eighty degrees,
lowering the drill arm to the surface and extracting
a core sample.
On returning to the rest position, the sample is
transferred to the return capsule and sent back to
Earth" [end quote]
Therefore the Soviet Lunokhod I/II-Luna XVII/XXI missions
both successfully landed their unmanned remote-controlled
lunar-rovers a.k.a. dune-buggies on the Moon: in the same
time frame as the alleged "apollo" missions were supposed
to have occurred. These remote-controlled Russian buggies
placed French- made laser reflectors on the Moon! Another
Soviet unmanned mission, Luna XVI, landed on the Moon and
returned a soil sample to the Earth by September 24, 1970:
from the Moon, unmanned, programmed and remote-controlled.
So laser-reflecting corner prisms were placed on the Moon
by unmanned probes and a 100g x 35 cm soil sample drilled
out from the lunar surface was sent back to Earth by this
earlier of these unmanned missions all in the early 1970s.
This completely and absolutely destroys any argument that
lunar soil samples or lunar laser reflectors "prove" that
men were on the Moon. Rather, as with all other evidences
cited allegedly supporting of the "apollo" missions, upon
precise examination the same evidence proves at least the
"manned" portions of these apollo missions were definitely
hoaxed. Men NEVER went to the Moon, because men have NEVER
achieved and survived sustained altitudes much above about
five or six hundred miles above Earth's sea level. Got it?
Remember, the Moon is almost a quarter million miles away--
that's *HALF A MILLION MILES ROUND TRIP*! Get the picture?
By contrast, the Russians proved that they did send their
unmanned probes to the Moon to wit: the presence of laser
reflectors left thereon by the aforesaid Lunokhod buggies.
It could be argued that the lunar soil samples were faked
somehow, but laser reflecting corner cubes are irrefutable
evidence that unmanned robotic probes put them there. See?
At least, the demonstrable presence of the "apollo" laser
reflectors proves the American space program successfully
sent some UNMANNED probes to the Moon -and- has continued
to launch many unmanned instruments into space ever since.
All these missions are UNMANNED. Why? The Sun, that's why.
That's why they NEVER send men into outer space. Not once.
Otherwise, they'd fry to a crisp in the intense radiation.
Happy Thanksgiving (Christians Are Praying for Armageddon),
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRz+yK5ljD7YrHM/nEQJbiACgqNRaoZr6/ypaaO7BmG4N4CGBfMUAoJKs
1fSC59zVpI6hkNYuQVnpIZW6
=ZsHa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
| User: "Bruce" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
30 Nov 2007 08:28:17 AM |
|
|
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2b231b9f-90d2-49d7-b67b-838faf231417@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
the very same good ship LOLLIPOP
In other words, you can't put up or shut up, much less constructively
contribute as to the topic or subtopic at hand. Gee whiz, what a
surprise.
- Brad Guth
And "the good ship lollipop" is an intelligent contribution?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carsten A. Arnholm" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know thisis a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
01 Dec 2007 01:46:21 PM |
|
|
BradGuth wrote:
If we had safely landed upon and walked upon our physically dark and
dusty moon ... <snip>
If we had not landed safely on the moon you would not have had any way
of knowing that it is dusty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969? |
02 Dec 2007 06:47:17 AM |
|
|
"The Church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is
round, for I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have
more faith in a shadow than in the Church."
-- Ferdinand Magellan (1470-1521)
BradGuth wrote:
Secondly, of such well known and thus entirely terrestrial proven
radar reflectors at not 1% the mass and less than 10% the stored
volume of those spendy corner cube retroreflectors could have been and
obviously should have been deployed, as well as for those passive
items not having cost 1% of what those spendy corner cube arrays set
us back.
We already have the capability of bouncing radar off the moon.
The corner cube retroreflectors added a new capability; bouncing
laser light off the moon. Laser light has a smaller wavelength
than radar, and thus gives a more precise measurement.
You still haven't explained how "they" got all those astronomers
in all those countries to all tell lies about getting reflections
back from lunar corner cube retroreflectors. One would think
that at least one of them would spill the beans...
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
02 Dec 2007 08:07:15 AM |
|
|
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in news:da990500-5b1d-4123-84d4-
dcc4e1cee72a@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
That is not true, as terrestrial based radar imaging with more than
sufficient resolution
Ignoring the distortion caused by the earth's atmoshpere - we didn't have
that kind of technology in 1969.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
04 Dec 2007 08:32:27 AM |
|
|
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in
news:45bc0b31-e3d6-40c3-b922-0a8d072eee64@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Dec 3, 4:38 am, Bruce <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote
innews:e662d3b7-87dd-426b-8a7d-f18fcdcc8765@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.c
om:
On Dec 2, 6:07 am, Bruce <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:da990500-5b1d-4123-84d4-
dcc4e1cee...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
That is not true, as terrestrial based radar imaging with more
than sufficient resolution
Ignoring the distortion caused by the earth's atmoshpere - we
didn't have that kind of technology in 1969.
Yes we did, and especially better off as of shortly thereafter.
Besides, small impactors are another way of our knowing just how
dusty and how deep of dust we're working with, as well as thermal
imaging does the trick.
BTW, Earth's atmosphere distorts a laser beam as well (especially
of those returning photons)
-BradGuth
Then I'm sure you'd be happy to provide links to your source for such
technology.
DoD/USAF and/or your all-knowing NASA can provide all of those
archives of our capable radar ranging and limited but sufficient radar
imaging resolution that goes back before those Apollo landings. We
had sufficiently narrow beams of radar before having accomplished
laser range finding. RF/microwave accomplishments came before laser
accomplishments.
I asked YOU to provide the link to the information. Back up your claims.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carsten A. Arnholm" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know thisis a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
01 Dec 2007 05:31:59 PM |
|
|
BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:46 am, "Carsten A. Arnholm" <arnh...@offline.no> wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
If we had safely landed upon and walked upon our physically dark and
dusty moon ... <snip>
If we had not landed safely on the moon you would not have had any way
of knowing that it is dusty.
That is not true, as terrestrial based radar imaging with more than
sufficient resolution and of remote thermal tracking with equally good
enough resolution is what tells us that our physically dark moon is
extremely dusty, .... <snip>
But you don't believe a imaging system, so you would not *know*.....
"Do you think they REALLY used a radar?"
The rest of us can rely on the observations done by the Apollo
astronauts and the images they sent home.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
02 Dec 2007 07:41:50 AM |
|
|
Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
If we had safely landed upon and walked upon our physically dark and
dusty moon ... <snip>
If we had not landed safely on the moon you would not have had any way
of knowing that it is dusty.
Not necessarily. Knowing is perhaps the wrong word to use. As the story
goes the moon is dusty so to use the word one is merely using a scene out
of the story. That doesn't mean it actually happened.
One can talk of Gollum without believing the Lord of the Rings is true. One
can discuss Shakesphere's Oberon and Puck without accepting that fairyland
exists or that the events described in A Midsummer's Night Dream actually
happened.
Sometimes in opposing those whose opinions you hold incorrect, you might
attempt to be too clever.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I knowthis is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
05 Dec 2007 04:32:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 08:58:58PM -0800, wrote:
On Dec 1, 4:50 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
BTW, at certain radar frequencies, and for so much as their having an
empty beer can left behind on that physically dark and dusty surface
of our moon, as such would have lit up a given radar pixel as though
we'd left a battleship parked on the moon.
Once again you make statements that simple not any where close to
reality.
One of the best radars for interplanetary work is in Arecibo Puerto
Rico. It is a 305 meter dish with a 2.5 mega watt transmitter. It is
one of the best for interplanetary works because of the 305 meter
dish allows a very narrow beam and the large size allows for weak
return signals to be received. It also has a high powered transmitter
to get enough power on the target to get a return signal. the measured
full power beamwidth of the Arecibo radar is 2.2 minutes of arc,
significantly better than 60 arc minute beam width of of most other
radars. Since the beam width is 2.2 minutes of arc and the moon is
385000 km away the smallest target the radar can observe is about 246
km. Now unless battleships are 246 km long the radar would never see
it.
Let's assume your figures are correct and accurate.
However we now know why Brad has won the Usenet Kook of the month
award yet again.
Let us also assume that you are correct, in comparison to any other
estimation of Brad's[sic] character and motives.
He drank all the beer in a 246km wide beer can
From this we may thus conclude that Brad is able to somehow drink all that
beer without it boiling off into foam and freezing to the landscape.
Logic is, indeed, mighty.
Regards,
Steve
--
( I've got to hold my train of thought, here, and not get off on some sick,
twisted tangent that will blow any hope of a book deal with a publisher
that doesn't sell off of the back of a pickup truck in the sleazy part of
town )
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anonymous" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
19 Nov 2007 08:12:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, malibu <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
You know what's really funny?
On this shot of Armstrong doing his 'one small step" thing,
his suit isn't even inflated.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11v_1092338.mpg
!! The moon must have an atmosphere! !!
I notice the picture on this has gotten quite vague.
Perhaps the one below is better? His suit isn't inflated here, either.
But he says the same line.
http://www.gaiaguys.net/moontruth.mpg
Yeah, the picture's alot better.
Funny. I don't remember one being worse than the other before.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
The good news is that the end of the world is imminent, and
these Anti-Christian Atheist U.S. Government Liars, Cowards
and Murderers definitely shall die & their lamentable souls
definitely shall burn in Hellfire. I do pray for Armageddon...
Happy Thanksgiving,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBR0I3F5ljD7YrHM/nEQK0pACgvglqOlhJ2P+tuzmuI1TtGevhHbQAnjjD
pl0aMB2vqbkYjrpyQe5CPcSG
=4OYZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris L Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
18 Nov 2007 12:11:16 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:55:07 -0800 (PST), RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Manmade objects can be seen on the surface of the Moon with a good
telescope.
No telescope currently exists that can resolve any manmade objects on
the Moon. In principle, long shadows from manmade objects are
potentially detectable, although not resolvable. But I've not heard of
any such shadows being conclusively imaged.
I've seen at least one of those with my own eyes.
What would that be? Imaging something would be extremely difficult;
seeing something visually strikes me as impossible.
(None of this is meant to argue against our having gone to the Moon, of
course. Only idiots or utter fools believe we didn't.)
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Broderick Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know thisis a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
19 Nov 2007 08:26:49 AM |
|
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:55:07 -0800 (PST), RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Manmade objects can be seen on the surface of the Moon with a good
telescope.
No telescope currently exists that can resolve any manmade objects on
the Moon. In principle, long shadows from manmade objects are
potentially detectable, although not resolvable. But I've not heard of
any such shadows being conclusively imaged.
I've seen at least one of those with my own eyes.
What would that be? Imaging something would be extremely difficult;
seeing something visually strikes me as impossible.
(None of this is meant to argue against our having gone to the Moon, of
course. Only idiots or utter fools believe we didn't.)
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
You morons. They put a mirror on the moon to bounce a laser off of it to
measure the moon's regression.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
19 Nov 2007 03:35:53 PM |
|
|
"Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:47419cd7$0$20611$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
You morons. They put a mirror on the moon to bounce a laser off of it to
measure the moon's regression.
but unfortunately the conspiracy theorists believe that the reflector was
placed there by unmanned robot craft. Some don't even believe there is a
reflector up there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
19 Nov 2007 04:37:19 PM |
|
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote in message
news:13k40cb1dil8g2b@corp.supernews.com...
:
: "Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
: news:47419cd7$0$20611$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
: > You morons. They put a mirror on the moon to bounce a laser off of it to
: > measure the moon's regression.
:
: but unfortunately the conspiracy theorists believe that the reflector was
: placed there by unmanned robot craft. Some don't even believe there is a
: reflector up there.
FORTUNATELY the conspiracy morons believe that the reflector was
placed there by unmanned robot craft. Some don't even believe there is a
reflector up there, and that sorts the wheat from the chaff, the scientists
from the morons. Kill-file them on sight, do not feed the trolls.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
22 Nov 2007 02:50:08 AM |
|
|
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:4db98e71-e265-473c-8cd4-b8740799b13c@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
: On Nov 19, 5:37 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_> wrote:
:
: > FORTUNATELY the conspiracy morons believe that the reflector was
: > placed there by unmanned robot craft. Some don't even believe there is a
: > reflector up there, and that sorts the wheat from the chaff, the
scientists
: > from the morons. Kill-file them on sight, do not feed the trolls.
:
: Excuse me Andro. I happen to be a laser scientist
Oh yeah, sure. You got a laser pointer for your birthday did you, sonny?
No adult of sane mind would claim to be a "laser scientist", that would
be like a chemist claiming to be a "drug scientist" or a civil engineer
claiming to be a "bridge scientist".
You are a stupid little kiddy still wet behind the ears, mental age about
12.
Go away, puppy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
25 Nov 2007 05:42:28 AM |
|
|
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:6021c5dc-dd92-402b-82c5-f21a87e8cc27@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
: On Nov 22, 3:50 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
:
: > : Excuse me Andro. I happen to be a laser scientist
:
: > Oh yeah, sure. You got a laser pointer for your birthday did you, sonny?
: >
: > No adult of sane mind would claim to be a "laser scientist", that would
: > be like a chemist claiming to be a "drug scientist" or a civil engineer
: > claiming to be a "bridge scientist".
: >
: > You are a stupid little kiddy still wet behind the ears, mental age
about
: > 12.
: > Go away, puppy.
:
: Let's see. All you can manage is school yard name-calling. Do you know
: that there is a "fag tag" on the back of your shirt?
: HAHAHAHAHA!
:
: You have NO idea who I am, but I know all about your senile engineer
: *****! 12 years old beats senility every time!
:
: You wouldn't know a real laser if it bit you on the *****. Ad hominem
: attacks do not count as a discussion of facts or data. This only
: proves that you have nothing to add to this conversation. (But most
: of us in these groups already knew that!)
:
: Get out of here, geezer. Those of us who still know where they are are
: having a conversation.
So I'm right and you admit it. Your IQ is your mental age
divided by your physical age multiplied by 100, "laser scientist",
and your mental age is 12-years-old. It's ok, I knew everything
when I was 12 too. Hopefully you'll develop and realise how little
anyone knows, but if your IQ is already below a hundred that
hope is forlorn, you will continue to be an arrogant mental midget.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Hedrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
24 Nov 2007 05:27:35 PM |
|
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote in message
news:13k40cb1dil8g2b@corp.supernews.com...
"Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:47419cd7$0$20611$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
You morons. They put a mirror on the moon to bounce a laser off of it to
measure the moon's regression.
but unfortunately the conspiracy theorists believe that the reflector was
placed there by unmanned robot craft.
Some of them *were*. The existence of a retroreflector *does not* in and of
itself prove that people went to the moon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
24 Nov 2007 06:12:51 PM |
|
|
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Mr22j.100$0J7.134276@news.sisna.com...
:
: "CWatters" <colin.watters@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote in message
: news:13k40cb1dil8g2b@corp.supernews.com...
: >
: > "Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
: > news:47419cd7$0$20611$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
: >> You morons. They put a mirror on the moon to bounce a laser off of it
to
: >> measure the moon's regression.
: >
: > but unfortunately the conspiracy theorists believe that the reflector
was
: > placed there by unmanned robot craft.
:
: Some of them *were*. The existence of a retroreflector *does not* in and
of
: itself prove that people went to the moon.
:
True. Proof depends on acceptance of fundamental axioms, not
plausibility, but when direct proof isn't available it is necessary
to fall back on what is plausible and credible.
Did O.J. Simpson murder his wife? Nobody saw him do it.
Criminal court said no, civil court said yes.
The difference?
Proof beyond reasonable doubt, proof by preponderance of
the evidence.
Having seen a shuttle launch (on more than one occasion) I
find the conspiracy trolls to be less plausible than my own eyes
and on par with the O.J. Simpson criminal trial jury.
Proof by the preponderance of the evidence says the Moon
was visited.
To prove beyond reasonable doubt the moon was visited,
be the visitor, go look at the footprints. Refusal to do so places
the burden of proof upon you to prove it wasn't done.
Of course you wouldn't be able to prove to me that you'd
done it either, I'd say you were lying even if you had.
It is only young cranks not born before 1957 and fruitcakes
that deny it anyway.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
18 Nov 2007 03:01:01 AM |
|
|
In sci.astro Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:55:07 -0800 (PST), RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Manmade objects can be seen on the surface of the Moon with a good
telescope.
No telescope currently exists that can resolve any manmade objects on
the Moon. In principle, long shadows from manmade objects are
potentially detectable, although not resolvable. But I've not heard of
any such shadows being conclusively imaged.
I've seen at least one of those with my own eyes.
What would that be? Imaging something would be extremely difficult;
seeing something visually strikes me as impossible.
(None of this is meant to argue against our having gone to the Moon, of
course. Only idiots or utter fools believe we didn't.)
I agree that _resolving_ the objects left on the Moon is impossible,
but that's different from _seeing_ them. In particular, at the right lighting
angle you might get a bright specular reflection.
Kevin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Hedrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
24 Nov 2007 05:25:48 PM |
|
|
<mommycalled@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:768482b1-2713-47f2-9e08-434ec92987f5@41g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Personally, I'd like
the tinfoil hat brigade to be quiet.
It's not possible for NASA or any other government agency to ever provide
proof to satisfy these clowns. By definition, anything that doesn't support
their claims is false.
I'd like to see them collectively pool their money (think of the rent they
must be saving living in their parent's basements), have a satellite and
receiver built, and hire the Russians to launch it for them. Let them take
their own pictures.
The technology is available to do it, including the launch, for under $200
million.
Of course, they have no incentive to do this, because the raw pictures will
*never* support their claims, and they know it. Actually trying to prove the
conspiracy will do nothing but prove there is none and never has been. They
have FAITH, so they don't need proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? ***** |
26 Nov 2007 07:36:05 PM |
|
|
01 milirad on the moon.
1 milirad in orbit.
And then all the exposed radiation data.
1.....the moon is radioactive and much hotter then the space around it.
2... the moon is no shield from the radiation of space.
3 , ,,, as long as nasa can use the moon hoax crap they invented to hide
the facts in a pile of worthless ***** it might just work.
***** no tthey dint go.
armstrong held no radioactive cobalt 45 in his hand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=98=A0Relf?=" |
|
| Title: What would you like to see, if not Nasa ? |
26 Nov 2007 08:31:52 PM |
|
|
What would you like to see, if not Nasa ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: What would you like to see, if not Nasa ? |
30 Nov 2007 05:22:50 PM |
|
|
Jeff Honest people like in the days of Saturn V Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: What would you like to see, if not Nasa ? |
03 Dec 2007 01:23:48 AM |
|
|
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10300-47509B4A-60@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
Jeff Honest people like in the days of Saturn V Bert
You just may get your wish!
It wasn't so much that they were more honest back then - it's just that they
weren't all bean-counters. But, the scientists don't run the show no mo.
It was real tough when the bean-counters took over because they believed
that the best way to minimize expenses is to not develop or launch rockets.
The result is that the "next generation" space shuttle is going to be an
Apollo space capsule. Aaaarrrgggghhhhhh!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=98=A0Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Welcome to the Wild Wild West. |
30 Nov 2007 07:28:55 PM |
|
|
You say you want “ Honest people like in the days of Saturn V ”,
Bert, but they're the product of a long-gone era.
More and more people are becoming like me:
over-indulged, over-informed and over-fed.
Just to give you feel for what it's like for us,
take the case of Hans and Nina Reiser.
They met in St. Petersburg, Russia, at the start of 1999.
She was a 25 year old obstetrician/mail-order bride;
he, a 35 year old Linux kernel devoloper from San Francisco
with great promise. It was the height of the tech bubble.
He was shopping for Russian coders and a mail-order bride.
She got pregnant the night they met, they married 5 months later.
Another child came a year after that.
By 2001, Nina stayed in San Francisco as the C.F.O. of their company,
NameSys. Meanwhile, Hans was in Moscow, with his coders.
ReiserFS was the product,
a huge part of the Linux kernel, Linspire and Novell's SuSE.
Funding came from Linspire ( a desktop PC retailer ),
a .6 mega dollar grant from the Pentagon's R&D agency, etc.;
but, by 2004, things fell apart... hopes were dashed.
Nina started doing ecstasy and dating Hans' shady friend/investor,
Sean Sturgeon, engaging in S&M ( also via Craig's list, Hans says ).
Sean claims he's killed at least 8 people.
Welcome to the Wild Wild West, Nina.
Over a year ago, Nina turned up missing,
as did Han's pasanger-side car seat.
Hans cleaned the car, but the police still found her blood.
Upon Hans' arrest,
he had a passport and 9 thousand U.S. dollars in cash in his fanny pack.
Two days after the arrest, Novell dropped the ReiserFS,
and NameSys went bankrupt, unable to pay its employees.
Hans went from looking like this, a brilliant child prodigy:
“ www.Stanford.EDU/class/ee380/Abstracts/Hansmug.gif ”...
....to being a hand-cuffed prisoner in solitary confinement,
looking like this:
“ www.Wired.COM/images/article/magazine/1507/ff_linuxkiller1_f.jpg ”.
De facto, he's a prisoner, guilty,
unless and until he can prove his innocence;
and he has no money for lawyers.
A photo of Nina Reiser:
“ www.Wired.COM/images/article/magazine/1507/ff_linuxkiller2_f.jpg ”.
A photo of Anthony Zografos, Nina's most recent boyfriend,
and Irina Sharanova, Nina's mom:
www.SFGate.COM/c/pictures/2006/10/12/ba_mother_caoak102.jpg
Irina now has de-facto custody of the kids, age 8 and 7, in Russia.
Having created us, evolution judges us all.
It's how we got here, and why we must either evolve
or be ground-up in the engine, by the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
For more on this, see Wired.COM:
www.Wired.COM/techbiz/people/magazine/15-07/ff_hansreiser?currentPage=all
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
25 Nov 2007 05:22:57 AM |
|
|
Scott Hedrick wrote:
It's not possible for NASA or any other government agency to ever provide
proof to satisfy these clowns. By definition, anything that doesn't support
their claims is false.
Nonetheless, an impartial examination of the evidence shows
that the US really did land on the moon in 1969.
A laser ranging retroreflector was positioned on the moon
by the Apollo 11 astronauts so as to reflect laser pulses
from the earth. The laser reflector consists of 100ea.
3.8cm Dia. fused silica corner cubes mounted on a 46cm
aluminum panel. An identical reflector was placed by Apollo
14, and a 300-cube reflector was was placed by Apollo 15.
No known unmanned probes have landed at the Apollo 11/14/15
sites, but the Russian Lunakhod 2 unmanned lander also left
a corner reflector.
Observatories that have ranged these reflectors include the
McDonald Observatory in Texas, the Haleakala High Altitude
Observatory on Maui (Hawaii), the Grasse observatory in
France, the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico, the
Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton in California, and the
Laser Ranging Observatory in Wettzell, Germany.
Also see:
Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations
(As always with Wikipedia, the real evidence is in the links and
the logic of the article, not the authoritativeness of Wikipedia) )
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
18 Nov 2007 08:58:39 AM |
|
|
"Kevin" <ktn3654@linux3.ph.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:fhov0d$6ra$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
In sci.astro Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:55:07 -0800 (PST), RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Manmade objects can be seen on the surface of the Moon with a good
telescope.
No telescope currently exists that can resolve any manmade objects on
the Moon. In principle, long shadows from manmade objects are
potentially detectable, although not resolvable. But I've not heard of
any such shadows being conclusively imaged.
I've seen at least one of those with my own eyes.
What would that be? Imaging something would be extremely difficult;
seeing something visually strikes me as impossible.
(None of this is meant to argue against our having gone to the Moon, of
course. Only idiots or utter fools believe we didn't.)
I agree that _resolving_ the objects left on the Moon is impossible,
but that's different from _seeing_ them. In particular, at the right
lighting
angle you might get a bright specular reflection.
Kevin
Wikipedia says...
Large telescopes and the Moon hoax
Another component of the moon hoax theory is based on the argument that
professional observatories and the Hubble Space Telescope should be able to
take pictures of the lunar landing sites. The argument runs that if
telescopes can "see to the edge of the universe" then they ought to be able
to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. This implies that the world's
major observatories (as well as the Hubble Program) are complicit in the
moon landing hoax by refusing to take pictures of the landing sites.
To see the 1.2 meter long flag left on the Moon, an Earth-based telescope
would have to be 200 meters wide, whereas the largest telescope on Earth is
only about 10 meters across. The Hubble Space Telescope can only see objects
on the Moon as small as 60 meters [100] across.[101]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris L Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
18 Nov 2007 09:17:21 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:58:39 -0000, "CWatters"
<colin.watters@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote:
Wikipedia says...
To see the 1.2 meter long flag left on the Moon, an Earth-based telescope
would have to be 200 meters wide, whereas the largest telescope on Earth is
only about 10 meters across. The Hubble Space Telescope can only see objects
on the Moon as small as 60 meters [100] across.[101]
The Wikipedia terminology ("see") is sloppy. Kevin's point (and mine
also) was that much smaller objects on the Moon can be detected, and it
doesn't take the Hubble Telescope to do it. While you need a 200 meter
aperture to _resolve_ the flag on the Moon, the ability to _detect_ it
is limited only by signal-to-noise considerations. In principle, either
bright reflections or long shadows should be detectable by ordinary
amateur telescopes and imaging equipment (but not visually). That said,
I don't think anybody has actually managed it.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
18 Nov 2007 10:53:42 AM |
|
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:ldl0k3laj6tdrqouuppg87e4qieq1n0htg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:58:39 -0000, "CWatters"
<colin.watters@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote:
Wikipedia says...
To see the 1.2 meter long flag left on the Moon, an Earth-based telescope
would have to be 200 meters wide, whereas the largest telescope on Earth
is
only about 10 meters across. The Hubble Space Telescope can only see
objects
on the Moon as small as 60 meters [100] across.[101]
The Wikipedia terminology ("see") is sloppy. Kevin's point (and mine
also) was that much smaller objects on the Moon can be detected, and it
doesn't take the Hubble Telescope to do it. While you need a 200 meter
aperture to _resolve_ the flag on the Moon, the ability to _detect_ it
is limited only by signal-to-noise considerations. In principle, either
bright reflections or long shadows should be detectable by ordinary
amateur telescopes and imaging equipment (but not visually). That said,
I don't think anybody has actually managed it.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
I agree....but I suspect that neither detecting it or resolving it will
convince some people. Even going there again and bringing the flag back
might not be enough. I propose we send them up on the next shot and leave
them there until give in.
My father was part of the large team involved in the BBC's broadcasts of the
live moon landings. He was also involved with some of the first live TV
broadcasts to use the Early Bird sat. He was presented with a lighter
engraved to commemorate the event.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
18 Nov 2007 11:02:04 AM |
|
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote in message
news:13k0rfea9biv379@corp.supernews.com...
:
: "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
: news:ldl0k3laj6tdrqouuppg87e4qieq1n0htg@4ax.com...
: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:58:39 -0000, "CWatters"
: > <colin.watters@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote:
: >
: > >Wikipedia says...
: > >
: > >To see the 1.2 meter long flag left on the Moon, an Earth-based
telescope
: > >would have to be 200 meters wide, whereas the largest telescope on
Earth
: is
: > >only about 10 meters across. The Hubble Space Telescope can only see
: objects
: > >on the Moon as small as 60 meters [100] across.[101]
: >
: > The Wikipedia terminology ("see") is sloppy. Kevin's point (and mine
: > also) was that much smaller objects on the Moon can be detected, and it
: > doesn't take the Hubble Telescope to do it. While you need a 200 meter
: > aperture to _resolve_ the flag on the Moon, the ability to _detect_ it
: > is limited only by signal-to-noise considerations. In principle, either
: > bright reflections or long shadows should be detectable by ordinary
: > amateur telescopes and imaging equipment (but not visually). That said,
: > I don't think anybody has actually managed it.
: >
: > _________________________________________________
: >
: > Chris L Peterson
: > Cloudbait Observatory
: > http://www.cloudbait.com
:
: I agree....but I suspect that neither detecting it or resolving it will
: convince some people. Even going there again and bringing the flag back
: might not be enough. I propose we send them up on the next shot and leave
: them there until give in.
:
: My father was part of the large team involved in the BBC's broadcasts of
the
: live moon landings. He was also involved with some of the first live TV
: broadcasts to use the Early Bird sat. He was presented with a lighter
: engraved to commemorate the event.
:
http://xkcd.com/202/
http://xkcd.com/258/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SkySea" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
19 Nov 2007 11:26:48 PM |
|
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote:
I agree....but I suspect that neither detecting it or resolving it will
convince some people. Even going there again and bringing the flag back
might not be enough. I propose we send them up on the next shot and leave
them there until give in.
There's the theory I hold dear... that the "skeptics" darned well know
better, and are just being pains in the hopes of being awarded a
"proof trip" to the Moon. Lord knows they lack any other skills to
merit them a mission.
=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
