How do I know that the World Trade Center towers in NYC were in fact destroyed?<br /><br />I was last in Manhattan in 1990, saw them then with my own eyes. They existed.<br /><br />But the only proof I have that they are no longer there is television footage and other news accounts. Haven't seen it with my own eyes.<br /><br />Would it be reasonable for me to conclude that it's all a big hoax? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
astronaut23:<br />Forget the Van Allen belt sillyness. That doesnt wash with me.<br /><br />Me:<br />I agree, it don't play well with me either and heres why...the HB believes we did not land on the moon but believes the very scientists who had some involvement when they talk of radiation belts. Double standard at work there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
Good link, I never read the book and thought it was published well before 1970 but I was wrong. I do recall a few years after 1970 relating anything to do with time travel as future shock and when I thought about my Aunt, I realized that in a sense, her generation were almost as good as it gets for time travellers. She was born in 1925 so she would have been 13 in 1938 and lived where some towns had sporadic electricity at best and of course, cars of the 1920s and 30s. So she lives to see cars with running boards become streamlined, even talk of hovering cars. Propeller driven planes replaced by jets, supersonic travel a serious possibility, especially when the Concorde went into service.<br /><br />Buck rogers when she was 13 to Neil Armstrong when I was 13. Lotta change going on there. Now I'm older than she was when man landed on the moon and there is not as much future shock to me. Our generation and those who came after us would not recall life without electricity, cars with cranks, dial telephones are a distant memory for me these days. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
In Capricorn 1, the mission that had to be faked was the first landing on mars. The reason I mentioned the thinly veiled ref to Apollo was the fact that the movie showed a lunar module on mars. A lunar module would have to be shielded from atmospheric entry as the Viking landers were in order to land intact on mars.<br /><br />This movie was released in 1978, just 2 years after the Viking landings and some 4 years after the publication of the first book I'm aware of that called the lunar landings a hoax.<br /><br />A note on seeing lunar artifacts. I read somewhere a few years back that the European Southern Observatory (ESO) telescope array at Paranal might one day be able to image the descent stages of Apollo craft once the telescopes are operated together as an interferometer.<br /><br />But then, back in 1990, the P.I. for the camera aboard Hubble said Hubble had a 50/50 chance of spotting an extrasolar planet. He was half right I suppose but the point I suppose is that telescope optics are difficult to predict as to actual capability. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
<font color="yellow">. . . telescope optics are difficult to predict as to actual capability</font><br /><br />I remember that once upon a time a member here posted an absolutely awesome summary of the limits of resolution. The actual theoretical limits based on wavelengths and refractive indices and such.<br /><br />I don't remember enough to be able to find it myself, but would LOVE to see it brought to the top, and not just for the hoaxers. I'm pretty sure it was post-great crash.<br /><br />Anyone know where there that got to? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I recall that as well. It would be useful to have that so as to judge better what telescopes are capable of which for me is in trying to determine what it will take to see extrasolar worlds rather than proving we went to the moon.<br /><br />For one thing IMO, the hardcore HB wouldn't believe any images taken with a telesope anyway unless they themselves could be controlling and looking through the scope. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
Of course, with an interferometer, you never get to look through either scope to see with the net resolution.<br /><br />BTW, I believe I recall that resolution post, so it must be within the last year.<br /><br />IIRC it was in one of the Apollo hoax threads <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
> <i><font color="yellow">But the only proof I have that they are no longer there is television footage and other news accounts. Haven't seen it with my own eyes.</font>/i><br /><br />While you have not seen it with your own eyes, lots of people have, and you could if you wanted. Both of those are not the case with respect to humans on the Moon -- The number of actual witnesses is extremely small, and you cannot verify it your self.<br /><br />But regardless, people will believe (or not believe) whatever they want, facts be d@mned. Look at how many people in the US don't believe in evolution or believe the Earth is only ~6000 years old.<br /><br />If mountains of evidence such as ice cores, geological evidence, radio carbon dating, the time required for the light of distant stars to reach us, and so on cannot convince a huge percentage of the public that the universe is older than 6000 years, then I would not be surprised about the percentage of people believing the Lunar landings were a hoax.<br /><br />BUT TRYING TO DRAG THIS BACK ONTO TRACK...<br /><br />How much evidence will ve visible from the LRO? Bottom half of the Lunar lander? Buggies? Scientific equipment (e.g., the mirrors to bounce the laser signals back)? The buggie tracks across the Lunar surface? Tracks left by humans? Remains of the Lunar ascent vehicles that crashed back to the surface?</i>
How dare you drag this back on topic <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />An excellent question! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
If my testimony counts for anything, I can verify they are gone. I try not to get too close. I worked in the TV biz, and know too many people that were at the top. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
RR & MW, that is exactly my point: I have been provided with mountains of evidence and testimonials from individuals I trust. At some point healthy skepticism can stray into sociopath territory. <br /><br />For me to disbelieve that the towers are gone would be for me to label as liars a vast group of my fellow citizens.<br /><br />Which is of course why so many of us get our backs up on the Hoax theory: These guys are our heroes, and the hoax believers are calling them liars!<br /><br />I just ran across the YouTube video the other day where Buzz punches that idiot. Replayed it about 20 times, I can't get enough of that, it brightens my mood every time! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br />***<br />RR's question is IMO an important one. Knowing the answer ahead of time allows us to be that much more prepared for the next round of hoaxers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
If the CIA would turn one of their telescopes around and point it at Tranquility Base you would not have to send a probe.
Hubble is based upon the KH-11 spy satelite, the NROs standard spy sat. If Hubble can't resolve it, then I doubt that realistically there is is anything that the US govornment has that could. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
Well PP I guess that's where our opinions differ. I believe you can go out in the morning, glance up at the sky, pick up your newspaper and by the time you get back into your house the phone will be ringing with someone telling you what color your eyes are.
I hate to tell you this but our imaging capabilities are not <i>that</i> good.... Trust me on this.<br /><br />Besides, those images are taken from a few hundred miles up. The moon is 385,000 km away. it's a bit harder to resolve something the size of the LM first stage from that far away. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
Take a look at the google maps satellite photos of the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL. The simulated lunar landing site is reasonably clear, but now reduce that image by 1000 and you can imagine what the earth based satellite would see of the moon, i.e. not much.<br /><br />On another note, whenever I take my daughter there and we walk the length of the Saturn V, I'm always struck by how little of this immense vehicle was the "passenger compartment". To me its a striking image of just how hard it is to get to the moon.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>On another note, whenever I take my daughter there and we walk the length of the Saturn V, I'm always struck by how little of this immense vehicle was the "passenger compartment". To me its a striking image of just how hard it is to get to the moon.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />NASA put together a cool CGI movie showing a MER from launch to rolling around Mars. It was beautiful, but the thing that struck me the most was how much stuff was discarded on the way. First the solids, then the first stage, then the second stage, then the upper stage, then the cruise stage, then the backshell, then the heatshield, then the descent stage, then the landing module, which the small rover rolled off of, never to see it again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
"I think you have been watching too much TV........... "<br /><br />I'm watching too much TV!!! HA! HA! HA! Half of this thread is about our government duping the world about the greatest achievement in human history and I'm watching too much tv??? Just because I believe the government launches better optics before NASA or JPL??? Who has the biggest budget? What motivates our goverenment?<br />Apollo was not pure science, the space station was not pure science and the shuttle is not pure science. China will be the next major motivating factor in getting us to the moon. If China makes it, I guarantee we will have or will develop a way to visually monitor what they are doing on the surface.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Just because I believe the government launches better optics before NASA or JPL??? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That is simply too funny <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Government vs. NASA .. 
<br /><br />Have you ever thought about what the first letter in that NASA acronym means ?
<br /><br />Have you ever thought about what the first letter in that NASA acronym means ?Thanks all for the replies. Very interesting reading, for me anyway.<br /><br />I'm hoping that the upcoming LRO will be able to, during it's other mission objectives, give us some great looks at some of the Apollo remnants. I think it would offer some great opportunities to learn how these man made objects hold up (or maybe don't) on another 'heavenly' body such as the moon.<br /><br />I'm obviously no expert on optics and who has what capability, but I've got to believe that the U.S. Strategic Command would have the very best (whatever that may be) available with respect to that technology, perhaps long before NASA got the funding to build & support similar capabilities.
"That is simply too funny Government vs. NASA .. "<br /><br />Last time I checked, Vandenberg was not part of NASA.
"<br /><br />Last time I checked, Vandenberg was not part of NASA.Getting back to original optic, a poster over at BAUT calculated the aperture needed to image Apollo features on the Moon from Earth. These are theoretical figures, assuming no atmospheric distortion, Of course with an atmosphere you would need even larger telescopes.<br /><br /><br />Largest telescope operational today: ~11m <br /><br />Largest telescope planned to be built in the near future: 40-100m <br /><br />Smallest telescope capable of resolving Apollo sites: ~200m (will only show LM base as a single pixel though)<br /><br />Smallest telescope capable of detailed resolution of Apollo sites (ie spotting footprints): 2,000m<br /><br />These figures are also relevant to claims that spy stallites pointed at the Moon would be able to see Apollo hardware. None of the sky satellites have telescopes of sufficient aperture<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
Wow. Looks like we're not even close to the needed resolution.<br /><br />This may seem ridiculous, but I wonder if a radio telescope or some other detection device could be used to verify the presence of the Apollo objects by some method such as metal detection? Something that could determine the difference between man made metal and...say, something like a metallic meteorite. Just currious.
As has been repeated ad infinitum, regular laser ranging measurements are made from the reteroreflectors placed on the moon by at least 3 US manned missions, and at least 1 russian unmanned probe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
The point is that there is no need to verify their presence to anyone but a handful of nutters would would not believe any evidence presented to them. E.g:<br /><br />The Apollo record? Hoaxed.<br /><br />LRO? that will be hoaxed too, brought by the sample people who brought you Apollo.<br /><br />A return to the Moon in 2020 by the orion missions? Ditto.<br /><br />A Chinese mission? They were obviously bought off or they hoaxed itheir own mission for propoganda purposes.<br /><br />Private missions? Can't believe them, because big business is in bed with big government.<br /><br />If people won't believe the Apollo record, they won't believe anything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
Stars get ripped open like Christmas presents to create strange 'JuMBO' worlds
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram