Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 159
  1. #91
    lyly
    Guest
    i found this on the digital website of fairfax, an australian newspaper?
    if you want to see it yourself, here's the link, you have to subscribe, though.

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...?oneclick=true

    so apparently there are plans to look with a european telescope.


    Telescope to challenge moon doubters
    By Robert Matthews in London
    November 25 2002

    Was this real or faked?

    Conspiracy theorists, you have a problem. In an effort to silence claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked, European scientists are to use the world's newest and largest telescope to see whether the spacecraft are still on the lunar surface.

    For years, doubters have claimed that NASA, the United States space agency, spent billions of dollars faking the landings to convince the world that it had beaten the Soviet Union to the moon. Evidence cited has ranged from the absence of stars on any photographs taken by the astronauts to the way that the Stars and Stripes they planted seemed to flutter in a vacuum.

    This month NASA tried to put an end to the controversy by commissioning a definitive account of the evidence for the landings. Days later it dropped the idea after criticism that it was wasting money by taking on the lunatic fringe: naturally, this only boosted claims that the agency was trying to hide something.

    Now astronomers hope to kill off the conspiracy theory forever by using the Very Large Telescope (VLT) - by far the most powerful telescope in the world - to spot the Apollo lunar landers.

    Operated by European astronomers in the Chilean Andes, the VLT has four mirrors eight metres across linked by optical fibres. It can see a single human hair from 16 kilometres away.



    advertisement

    advertisement

    Trained on the moon, such astonishing resolution should enable it to see the base of one or more of the six lunar modules that NASA insists landed on the moon between 1969 and 1972.

    Supporters of the conspiracy theory welcomed the news that astronomers were to photograph the landing sites. But Marcus Allen, the British publisher of Nexus magazine and a long-time advocate of the theory, said photographs of the lander would not prove that the US put men on the moon. "Getting to the moon really isn't much of a problem - the Russians did that in 1959," he said. "The big problem is getting people there."

    According to Mr Allen, NASA was forced to send robots to the moon and faked the manned missions because radiation levels in space were lethal to humans.

    The Telegraph, London

  2. #92
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    As near as I have been able to determine, the European telescope is behind schedule and still a work in progress.

  3. #93
    lyly
    Guest
    i did find this though...

    http://www.dc8p.com/html/moonhoax.html

  4. #94
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    Yes, there are quite a number of humorous takes on the conspiracy theory.

  5. #95
    lyly
    Guest
    i got one of the links to work... so it's not necessary anymore to post another one. thank you very much.

  6. #96
    y0shi32
    Guest

    vd

    oooh ####, i have just read a little bit of what everyone been typing, so really dont know what your discussing, but hey, do you really belive in that the NASA really did land on the moon?

    and i would be very greatfull if you could give me an adress to download the documentary "conspiracy theory" - did we land on the moon

  7. #97
    lyly
    Guest

    same link

    this was the link that was posted earlier on this site, and that worked for me. if it doesn't work for you, go to the mother site and look for it there.
    http://www.bax.no/video/Conspiracy%2...The%20Moon.avi

  8. #98
    not The bad astronomer
    Guest
    Quote
    Quote: y0shi32
    oooh ####, i have just read a little bit of what everyone been typing, so really dont know what your discussing, but hey, do you really belive in that the NASA really did land on the moon?

    and i would be very greatfull if you could give me an adress to download the documentary "conspiracy theory" - did we land on the moon
    I belive in apollo But i don't know what you mean by "do you belive in that the NASA"

  9. #99
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    I won't patronise or bore you here by reproducing the maths [for computing the Hubble Space Telescope's resolution]. I'm sure the arithmetic is well within your capabilities.

    It is.

    With all those factors, the ACTUAL resolution of the Hubble telescope on the surface of the moon works out at...
    a) Enough to discern, say, a landing site / debris, etc
    or
    b) JUST not QUITE enough to settle the debate.


    The Dawes limit for diffraction at 500 nanometers using a 2.4 meter dish is 0.05 arcsecond, or just under 90 meters at lunar distance. Now that's the theoretical upper limit for stars on a black background. The practical limit for features on a planetary surface is much coarser. Basically, the HST's resolution is not anywhere close to what is necessary to see Apollo remnants on the surface. You can't use the Hubble to see anything smaller than a football stadium on the moon, and it's not in any way suspicious that the HST cannot be used this way; the shuttle cargo bay won't allow for an optical element larger than 2.4 meters.

    The call for more imaging is a red herring. If there is a mountain of information from NASA that is being ignored, what's so magical about one more little tidbit from NASA? I'll tell you: the difference is that the additional imaging isn't possible now, but the mountain of Apollo evidence exists, can be examined, and conclusions can be drawn based on it.

    By trying to argue that additional information is required in order to settle the debate, the conspiracy theorists try to keep the debate running. They only make money when there are questions, not when there are answers -- even answers in their favor. As soon as that standard of proof is satisifed, they raise the bar and say that some other now-unobtainable bit of evidence is the new question-settler.

    So when we finally have photographs of the landing sites, the "new" standard of proof will be that someone has to land and verify that the photos weren't faked. (It's always fun to hear people who dismiss one set of photographs as faked demand that other photographs are the only acceptable conclusive proof!) And then when that's done, they will demand that samples be brought back to Earth to confirm they are decades old and weren't recently placed there to be photographed and found.

    You see how the game is played. In the conspiracy theory world, the bit of "conclusive" evidence is always just out of reach so that the authors can keep plugging their books and videos. The last thing conspiracy theorists want to do is to reach a conclusion, even if it means they were right.

  10. #100
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    20
    Russians beat Americans in everything but landing on the Moon.

    No, not really. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Russians were intent on breaking records, not in building a long-term working space program. Especially under Krushchev the Soviet space program was simply one of the many political and propaganda tools by which the USSR tried to convince the world its system was better.

    Many of the space "firsts" turned out to be just stunts.

    For example, the Russians indeed put the first man in space and orbited him. But what they don't tell you is that his spacecraft couldn't land. They hadn't yet figured out how to do that. And so Yuri Gagarin had to bail out or be killed. The competing American spacecraft, Mercury, was technically far advanced compared to Gagarin's ship. Yes, it flew some weeks later and so missed the prize. But who was really ahead?

    Most people think the first woman in space has really nothing to do with anything. Full marks to the Soviets for doing it, but she was ordered not to touch the controls. She might as well have been a sack of onions. And look at it now: NASA has enough female astronauts to make several "all-girl" shuttle crews. When was the last time you heard of a female cosmonaut?

    The first two-man capsule? The Russians just took away the cosmonauts' space suits so they could cram two men into their one-man capsule. The same with the first three-man flight. In contrast the American two-man capsule was designed as such, as well as the American three-man capsule. Sure, they flew later, but they were much better. Who was really ahead?

    The first rendezvous in space? Yes, the Soviets claimed that one too. But in fact their ships couldn't even steer. They simply launched two capsules into a very similar orbit. In contrast the Americans figured out all the mathematics for a true orbital rendezvous, and their ships could actually steer and dock.

    The first space walk? Full marks to Leonov for bravery, but he very nearly died because he couldn't get back in the spacecraft. Because his copilot didn't have enough room to put his space suit on too, and because the Russian spacecraft actually broke if you bled all the air out of it, the Soviets had to improvise an airlock into which Leonov couldn't fit.

    When people say the Soviets were ahead, it's because the completely ignore the Gemini project. The early records were grabbed by the Russians because the Russians had that as their only goal, and worked toward firstmanship with wild abandon. (The Russians also lead the world in deaths associated with space travel.) Beginning in the mid-1960s NASA started getting those records back -- duration, altitude, etc. These weren't "glamorous" records, but they were more useful in getting ready to do real space exploration.

    The conspiracy theorists give you the state of affairs at about 1963, and then they jump ahead to 1969 and ask you to believe the state of affairs is "suspiciously" different. Well, if you look at the period 1963-1969 (which none of the conspiracists talk about) you can see a steady progress in American space endeavors and a faltering from the Soviets. Everything looks suspicious if you don't explain how it was done.

    I've seen many comments by American officialls that Russians 10 years ahead of Americans when it comes to Space exploration during late 70s-early 80s.

    Yes, that's largely true. Why? Because that's when the U.S. was building the space shuttle. If you pick a five-year period of intense research and development, you're going to see people heads-down working on the future, not flying in the present.

    In hindsight we see that the Soviet space program during that period and subsequently was probably more effective. The space shuttle was a risky gamble, and it hasn't paid off in many respects. While we were messing around with that, the Soviets had pretty much standardized on the Soyuz spacecraft. It's still 1960s technology, but it gets the job done and they have a lot of experience running it. It's old, but there's not much that can break. There's something to be said for that.

    Yet,they never did it. The stupid explanation that they gave up because it already was done is plain stupid.

    Why? It's the reason the Soviets themselves give. Initially they were only interested in being first, so that the Soviet Union and communism would be seen as the formula for progress and advancement. They spent enormous amounts of money during the Cold War appearing to be superior. If you didn't live during the Cold War you might not be in a position to understand why this makes sense.

    Why Americans didn't give up when Russians sent a first man, animal, woman in space and created the first space station to orbit the Earth.

    Because Americans think differently than Soviet communists.

    It doesn't make sence. Does it?

    It makes perfect sense if you talk to the people involved and ask them what they were thinking.

    ...I was very upset when I came to my personal conclussion that man never got to the Moon.

    If your conclusion upsets you then change your mind. There is far more defensible and objective evidence that the moon landings were real than that they were faked.

    NASA explonation is not good enough.

    There is no "NASA explanation". NASA, for the most part, ignores the conspiracy theories completely. With the exception of an isolated web page here and there, NASA says absolutely nothing. The main arguments against the conspiracy theories are coming entirely from private sources.

    This says two things. First, you don't have to work for NASA in order to understand how space travel works. This is not a case where NASA can just say what they want about space and no one is around to challenge them. And second, this is not a case of "patriots" against "the Gubmint". This is a debate between private citizens, chiefly between those who know what they're talking about and those who don't.

Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast

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
  •  
Subscribe to us on YouTube