Moon Landing Proof...

SLOW6 · Dec 21, 2008

Earlier on tonight I just had an annoying talk with a friend of mine about the moon landing. He was a firm believer that it never happened. I went through all the usual reasons but to no avail. This got me thinking... A few days ago while watching one of my 'Universe' DVDs, I recall hearing one of the telescopes (maybe the VLT?) i dont remember which, having the ability to see a candle flame from the moon. This I dont doubt one bit, so I pose the question, why cant they zoom in on the Lunar Lander or the US flag? Are they visible??? Maybe this is a stupid question but id like to know... Thanks! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> In an infinite Universe, any point can be said to be the centre as there are an infinite number of stars either side of that point...

</div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Earlier on tonight I just had an annoying talk with a friend of mine about the moon landing. He was a firm believer that it never happened. I went through all the usual reasons but to no avail. This got me thinking... A few days ago while watching one of my 'Universe' DVDs, I recall hearing one of the telescopes (maybe the VLT?) i dont remember which, having the ability to see a candle flame from the moon. This I dont doubt one bit, so I pose the question, why cant they zoom in on the Lunar Lander or the US flag? Are they visible??? Maybe this is a stupid question but id like to know... Thanks! Posted by SLOW6</DIV> No, all the artifacts on the moon are too small to image by telescope, not enough angular resolution is possible.However, lasers have been used to illuminate the special reflectors left behind that shoot the laser light straight back. It is bright enough compared to the background that the return signal can be seen. Using that information we know the exact distance to the moon's surface within an inch or two.Also, I believe two of the upcoming Moon orbiters will have sufficient resolution from orbit to image some of the objects left behind. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

SLOW6 · Dec 21, 2008

ok cool... thanks for the reply. Very much appreciated. My mind now boggles that we cant glimple a flag on the moon yet we can view an embryonic galaxy over 13billion light years away! haha... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> In an infinite Universe, any point can be said to be the centre as there are an infinite number of stars either side of that point...

</div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ok cool... thanks for the reply. Very much appreciated. My mind now boggles that we cant glimple a flag on the moon yet we can view an embryonic galaxy over 13billion light years away! haha... Posted by SLOW6</DIV> A galaxy is much bigger and brighter

In addition, the furthest ones have a magnifying lens in front of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

SLOW6 · Dec 21, 2008

QUOTE]A galaxy is much bigger and brighter

In addition, the furthest ones have a magnifying lens in front of them. Posted by MeteorWayne[/QUOTE] I understand that but i still find it hard to get my head around the fact we cant zoom in on a flag on the moon... I mean surely under full sunlight ona perfect night its visible? I re-checked my facts and it was the KEK telescope in Hawaii... they definately said the mirror/lens was powerful enought to see a candle flame on the moon... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> In an infinite Universe, any point can be said to be the centre as there are an infinite number of stars either side of that point...

</div>

Boris_Badenov · Dec 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand that but i still find it hard to get my head around the fact we cant zoom in on a flag on the moon... I mean surely under full sunlight ona perfect night its visible? I re-checked my facts and it was the KEK telescope in Hawaii... they definately said the mirror/lens was powerful enought to see a candle flame on the moon... Posted by SLOW6</DIV>We figured out the size aperture needed to view the lunar lander from the Earths surface in thread here a while back. IIRC it was in the neighborhood of 180' or a little more than 55 meters. Imaging a light source is easier than imaging an object that only reflects light due to the wavelength of light itself.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div> </div>

jim48 · Dec 21, 2008

I have no patience with the moon hoax people. They're right in there with Elvis still being alive, the flat-Earthers and astrology. I was watching an interview with some of the astronauts on the Discovery Channel and they were asked about the moon hoax. What a bunch of crap! How dare they dishonor those guys by asking such a stupid question? They managed to keep the Roswell saucer crash secret for 30 years. Don't you think by now some evidence of a moon landing hoax would have leaked out? How many hundreds of thousands worked on Apollo at its peak? That many can keep a secret for so long? Not!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

adrenalynn · Dec 22, 2008

If you know anyone that stupid, it's best not to debate with them.  You can't possibly win by applying logic and reason.  Believe me, they've heard it all and it's gone right in one ear, bounced around the hollow, and found an exit without actually leaving any trace. Naw, the best solution is to simply kill them.  No emotion, just whack them.Do be careful not to shoot them in the head however.  The ricochet can potentially cause you harm. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .bipartisan (bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.IMPEACH OBAMA! </div>

SLOW6 · Dec 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you know anyone that stupid, it's best not to debate with them.  You can't possibly win by applying logic and reason.  Believe me, they've heard it all and it's gone right in one ear, bounced around the hollow, and found an exit without actually leaving any trace. Naw, the best solution is to simply kill them.  No emotion, just whack them.Do be careful not to shoot them in the head however.  The ricochet can potentially cause you harm. Posted by adrenalynn</DIV> hahaha well said... I just had a bit of a giggle and thats rare at 8am after a bloody nightshift! I understand totally about the 'flogging a dead horse' feeling that arrives when debating this topic.. Call me a sucker, I just cant stand to sit idley by an listen the nonsense without saying something!  I guess it does make sense that the flag or lunar module/lander etc are not light sources and are therefore more difficult to see. It seemed a simple solution when I thought about it haha... I guess thats the wonderful world we live in... Things arent always what they seem

Cheers guys... bed time for me <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> In an infinite Universe, any point can be said to be the centre as there are an infinite number of stars either side of that point...

</div>

Saiph · Dec 22, 2008

candle vs flag:It's a matter of resolution.  Seeing a candle means that the telescope is able to gather and focus enough light to detect the candle. However, the telescope would be hard pressed to tell you exactly where the candle is.  Imagine an image on the computer, made up of pixels.  Blow it up, and you see only a few pixels.  While you may be able to tell if a pixel gets brighter, you cannot determine any more detail smaller than teh size of the pixel.  Did it get brighter as a whole? Did something really small cause it? If so, where is it?  You can't know, as all the information is lumped into that single pixel.Telescope imaging has the same problem, partly due to the pixel nature of CCD's, and mostly due to the nature of light itself.  The light from the candle is to fine a source for a telescope to pick out in detail, it's light would be smeared across a larger area. Detectable, yes, but fuzzy and indistinct.The flag is far to small, the lander is far to small, for any telescope to pick it out of the rest of the details on the moon.  The telescope would have to be ~1.5 km in diamter to be able to do so (or using interferometry have 2 telescopes linked ~1.5 km apart). Other pieces of proof for the moon landing:Soviet Union didn't claim we didn't, not even in their wildest propaganda.Moon RocksHam operators worldwide tracking the radio broadcastsPictures and footage (haven't seen any convincing arguement that they were faked).Laser reflectorsThe Saturn V is certainly capable of doing so.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Saturn V is certainly capable of doing so.  Posted by Saiph</DIV> Or more correctly, WAS capable of doing so, since only relics exist anymore

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

adrenalynn · Dec 22, 2008

Glad I put a smile on your face. The reflectors are the best argument.  Can you imagine every observatory on the planet covering-up for a government that most don't even like?  Can you even _envision_ a conspiracy that could be kept quiet for generations when tens of thousands of people could blow it open and be paid unlimited dollars for it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .bipartisan (bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.IMPEACH OBAMA! </div>

brellis · Dec 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you know anyone that stupid, it's best not to debate with them.  You can't possibly win by applying logic and reason.  Believe me, they've heard it all and it's gone right in one ear, bounced around the hollow, and found an exit without actually leaving any trace. Naw, the best solution is to simply kill them.  No emotion, just whack them.Do be careful not to shoot them in the head however.  The ricochet can potentially cause you harm. Posted by adrenalynn</DIV>Almost lost another keyboard reading that!  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif" border="0" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

kelvinzero · Dec 22, 2008

I think there are two types of people who doubt the moon landings: conspiracy theorists and people who just have not thought about it. This second category would make up the majority of the statistics but can in fact have their mind changed quite easily.One argument I have had success with is to remind them that the russians were no doubt subjecting the american program to intense scrutiny, and also had their own robotic mission, and their own sample return mission.A third category is people who just want to see if they can make your head implode.

onesmallstep · Dec 22, 2008

If the KEK telescope could really image a candle on the moon, and even if the candle were only one pixel, this brings to mind another question....The lander and flag are much larger than a candle flame, so shouldn't they appear as more than one pixel? And with the contrast of the red, white and blue in the flag, or the gold foil on the lander, (which is highly reflective), against the gray of the moon's surface, hmmmm...could it be???? Not saying valuable telescope time should actually be used just to disprove these goofy claims from a bunch of kooks, just theoretically?   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

brellis · Dec 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If the KEK telescope could really image a candle on the moon, and even if the candle were only one pixel, this brings to mind another question....The lander and flag are much larger than a candle flame, so shouldn't they appear as more than one pixel? And with the contrast of the red, white and blue in the flag, or the gold foil on the lander, (which is highly reflective), against the gray of the moon's surface, hmmmm...could it be???? Not saying valuable telescope time should actually be used just to disprove these goofy claims from a bunch of kooks, just theoretically?   Posted by onesmallstep</DIV>A candle emits light, but the Apollo stuff doesn't. If a candle were to glow on the dark portion of the moon, Keck could theoretically detect its light.  There's another good one from one of those powerful telescopes on Hawaii: they've got a new camera that could detect the light change caused by a moth flying in front of a lamp 1,000 miles away. They're using that camera to more precisely measure the size of extrasolar planets that transit their stars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

onesmallstep · Dec 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A candle emits light, but the Apollo stuff doesn't. If a candle were to glow on the dark portion of the moon, Keck could theoretically detect its light.  There's another good one from one of those powerful telescopes on Hawaii: they've got a new camera that could detect the light change caused by a moth flying in front of a lamp 1,000 miles away. They're using that camera to more precisely measure the size of extrasolar planets that transit their stars. Posted by brellis</DIV> Thanks.  I was wondering if the candle had to be in total darkness to be seen, I didn't see this stated previously in the discussion.  So if only Apollo had left some small solar powered light source on the moon...They should have placed spotlights on the flag, after all flag protocol requires they either be taken down at night, or illuminated, (kidding of course.)  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Dec 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks.  I was wondering if the candle had to be in total darkness to be seen, I didn't see this stated previously in the discussion.  So if only Apollo had left some small solar powered light source on the moon...They should have placed spotlights on the flag, after all flag protocol requires they either be taken down at night, or illuminated, (kidding of course.)  Posted by onesmallstep</DIV> I made a quick try to determine what kind of delta T a LEM would have to have to be "detectable" by the Keck but alas it'll take a bit more effort that I have time for right now.  A very brief review of the NIRC-2 specs makes me think that a single pixel would image a square on the Moon a bit over 2000 miles on a side.  For something the size of a LEM to raise the output of a single pixel detectably above the background would require it to be pretty hot IMO.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

Boris_Badenov · Dec 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The flag is far to small, the lander is far to small, for any telescope to pick it out of the rest of the details on the moon.  The telescope would have to be ~1.5 km in diamter to be able to do so (or using interferometry have 2 telescopes linked ~1.5 km apart).  Posted by Saiph</DIV>Thank you Saiph, I could remember somebody figured out the aperture size for the wavelength of light at that distance, but I wasn't sure what it was. My 180' guess was off by a mile (pun intended <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />). I do remember the aperture size to distinguish surface features on Gliese 581 c was around 60 miles or about 100 kilometers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div> </div>

3488 · Dec 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you Saiph, I could remember somebody figured out the aperture size for the wavelength of light at that distance, but I wasn't sure what it was. My 180' guess was off by a mile (pun intended ). I do remember the aperture size to distinguish surface features on Gliese 581 c was around 60 miles or about 100 kilometers. Posted by boris1961</DIV>Hi boris, My guess is that it would take something like a larger version of the Terrestrial Planet Finder  to resolve surface features on the nearest exo planets. In fact it would probably take something similar to image man made hardware on the Lunar Surface. Over the years, this subject has been done to death. The JAXA Kaguya / Selene has imaged the halo at the Apollo 15 site .Andrew Brown.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

adrenalynn · Dec 23, 2008

You know, even if they COULD image, would it matter?  The conspiracy theorists would just swear the photo was doctored. This entirely "no-win".  The only way to answer any one conspiracy theorist would be to take them there and leave 'em...  The dumpster is closer and cheaper though.

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> .bipartisan (bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən) [Adj.] Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.IMPEACH OBAMA! </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You know, even if they COULD image, would it matter?  The conspiracy theorists would just swear the photo was doctored. Posted by adrenalynn</DIV>I think you're right.

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

dragon04 · Dec 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think you're right.

Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>There is absolutely no way that anyone could convince a person who believes that the Moon landings were a hoax that they were NOT a hoax.The mechanisms of such a mind are beyond reason and rationale. They are the anti-fanatic. The equal are opposite fervent disbeliever that provides the yin to the fervent believer's yang to keep our world in balance.I've often wondered HOW a person could deny that Men landed on the Moon not once, but  six times. To convince the World (and more importantly the USSR) that we'd landed on the Moon would not require 6 subsequent missions and 5 successe. One repeat would likely be enough.In fact, that the USSR did NOT dispute our claim of landing on the Moon should be enough evidence in and of itself considering the political climate of the 1960's. The Soviets made sure to engage Jodrell Bank in the UK to verify the location of their first lunar probe as they crashed it into the Moon.It only stands to reason that the Soviets, via telemmetry were acutely aware of where 6 Moon Missions were. One cannot fake the small but nevertheless obvious time delay in radio and/or video transmissions from the surface of the Moon.Certainly, I can hoax the time delay, but I can't do that AND hoax the point of origin simultaneously unless SOMETHING was landed on the Moon. The simple answer is that those who dispute a Moon landing must be discounted. Unfortunately, that also means that anything they say probably has to be discounted, or at least subjected to the highest order of scientific scrutiny. Richard Hoagland comes to mind here.I very seriously doubt that we can convince 100% of the people of anything other than perhaps the fact that the sn rises and sets every day. But even there, there are those who believe that sunrise and sunset are due to the Earth being the center of the solar system as opposed to the Earth orbiting the Sun.Those people, and all that have the same mentality regardless of what it is they believe or disbelieve are irretrievably lost to the furtherance of the gene pool. We jusy have to hope that the Dark Ages are never revisited, and that they are always in the vast minority.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

SLOW6 · Dec 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If the KEK telescope could really image a candle on the moon, and even if the candle were only one pixel, this brings to mind another question....The lander and flag are much larger than a candle flame, so shouldn't they appear as more than one pixel? And with the contrast of the red, white and blue in the flag, or the gold foil on the lander, (which is highly reflective), against the gray of the moon's surface, hmmmm...could it be???? Not saying valuable telescope time should actually be used just to disprove these goofy claims from a bunch of kooks, just theoretically?   Posted by onesmallstep</DIV>I agree about the possibility of any extra rock solid proof being able to actually sway a poisoned, paranoid mind. As far as the KEK telescope was concerned I did say 'powerful enough', as they said on the DVD. I suppose there is a difference between 'Powerful Enough' and actually 'Being able to'... I just had part 2 of the debate start again yesterday but I walked away... haha... And thats kind of hard when its someone you work with on almost a daily basis. Nevermind.Just out of interest, when are these 2 moon orbiters going to be arriving at the giant lump of cheese? If what you say is accurate, I hope they do take some high res shots of the 'left overs' on the moon... Not so much for the skeptics, because as we all agreed its kind of pointless, but for the fac that i'd like to see it all. It would be cool.As for angular resolution... im afriad im going to have to look this up and try and grasp the meaning and fundermentals as I have no idea about this sort of thing.Thanks again for the response guys...Merry Xmas to you all btw! G <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> In an infinite Universe, any point can be said to be the centre as there are an infinite number of stars either side of that point...

</div>

Moon Landing Proof...

SLOW6

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

SLOW6

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

SLOW6

Guest

Boris_Badenov

Guest

jim48

Guest

adrenalynn

Guest

SLOW6

Guest

Saiph

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

adrenalynn

Guest

brellis

Guest

kelvinzero

Guest

onesmallstep

Guest

brellis

Guest

onesmallstep

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

Boris_Badenov

Guest

3488

Guest

adrenalynn

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

dragon04

Guest

SLOW6

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page