Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Parody of the moon landings
Sealion
post Dec 23 2005, 11:20 AM
Post #1


Registered User


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 23-December 05
Member No.: 3,370



As much as I believe in the moon landing hoax, this still made me giggle
parody
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Google Bot
post Dec 23 2005, 11:20 AM
Post #


Google Ads









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
mr-e
post Jan 3 2006, 08:55 PM
Post #2


Registered User


Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 31-December 05
Member No.: 3,418



Sealion, your post reminded me of this little gem. Enjoy.
E.
http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=lH7fFyRwNK4
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
silverglance
post Jan 3 2006, 09:11 PM
Post #3



*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,187
Joined: 28-June 05
Member No.: 2,507



:laugh: Both very funny :laugh: Thanks, guys.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wayne72
post Jan 4 2006, 08:46 PM
Post #4



*

Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 1-October 05
Member No.: 2,950



I used to think The Moon landings were real, then I was given enough evidence to prove them fake, then i've discovered the answers to believe The Moon Landings were real again.

My final question is, is it possible to see the flag from a good telescope? if not why?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andrew
post Jan 4 2006, 09:10 PM
Post #5



*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,751
Joined: 16-January 04
Member No.: 205



(wayne72)
My final question is, is it possible to see the flag from a good telescope? if not why?

Short answer: No, not yet. The six flags themselves likely no longer exist now--UV light would break down the material from which they were made.

The atmosphere imposes a limit to what is resolvable with conventional optics. At the moon's distance this translates to objects about the size of football pitches. The Hubble space telescope also operates at about this boundry (it is constrained by the small size of its optics, not by the atmosphere). For conventional optics, you would need a telescope around 100m in diameter to be able to resolve any manmade remnants on the moon at our distance. (And it would therefore be much easier to send a space probe to image them. But the ESA does actually have plans to build a telescope this large, called OWL--Overwhelmingly Large Telescope.)

There are new tricks these days that allow a network of relatively small telescopes to resolve objects that subtend angles much smaller than the atmospheric constraints on single conventional telescopes would allow, and ground-based telescopes have actually now surpassed the resolving power of the Hubble space telescope. But it is still not quite good enough to look for manmade objects on the moon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andrew
post Jan 5 2006, 12:14 AM
Post #6



*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,751
Joined: 16-January 04
Member No.: 205



BTW, the largest manmade remnants on the moon are not the flags. There are six Lunar Module descent stages measuring thirty nine feet across the landing pads and two LRVs (Lunar Roving Vehicles), which are far larger.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shadout
post Jan 6 2006, 04:54 AM
Post #7



*

Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 8-December 03
Member No.: 80



If it's possible to read the print on a persons newspaper from spy satellites, it seems a little odd that the discarded LVR's can't be spotted on the moon...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andrew
post Jan 6 2006, 06:17 AM
Post #8



*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,751
Joined: 16-January 04
Member No.: 205



It is not possible to do that with spy satellites, therefore it is not odd that Apollo remnants cannot be seen on the moon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andrew
post Jan 6 2006, 08:02 PM
Post #9



*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,751
Joined: 16-January 04
Member No.: 205



(Andrew)
BTW, the largest manmade remnants on the moon are not the flags. There are six Lunar Module descent stages measuring thirty nine feet across the landing pads and two LRVs (Lunar Roving Vehicles), which are far larger.

Far larger than the flags. Not to suggest that the LRVs are larger than the LM descent stages.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Angry_Jerk
post Jan 9 2006, 11:40 AM
Post #10



*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,279
Joined: 4-November 04
Member No.: 1,443



(Andrew)
It is not possible to do that with spy satellites, therefore it is not odd that Apollo remnants cannot be seen on the moon.


I dunno about that one. I've heard from numerous people that the military has technology ten years ahead of what civilians have.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andrew
post Jan 9 2006, 12:04 PM
Post #11



*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,751
Joined: 16-January 04
Member No.: 205



(Angry_Jerk)
I dunno about that one. I've heard from numerous people that the military has technology ten years ahead of what civilians have.

Yes, but like civilians they are not unconstrained by the laws of physics. Spy satellites are large spacecraft, the Hubble Space Telescope was derived from one. But if you calculate, using the Rayleigh criterion, the required primary mirror size to be able to read newspaper print from orbital altitudes, you find that it would require something quite enormous. The latest ones weigh upwards of 20 tons and have resolutions at ground level of a few inches (not good enough to read newspaper print). Hubble weighs around eleven tons.


Hubble primary mirror.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Angry_Jerk
post Jan 9 2006, 01:15 PM
Post #12



*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,279
Joined: 4-November 04
Member No.: 1,443



Then I assume they can't seriously read license plate numbers on cars?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ben
post Jan 9 2006, 05:30 PM
Post #13



**********

Group: Banned
Posts: 19,193
Joined: 16-December 03
Member No.: 109



Prolly not unless they have one which is like Ultra top secret.....it's not those imaging things in their own right that makes good intelligence though. If it spots a vehicle for example heading in a direction it is interested in then by passing the location time etc on to ground agents they can then scan CCTV images for the exact time and place it wuld have passed - it's all about being part of an integrated intelligence network. No intelligence stand up in it's own right - there needs to be at least two independent inputs before intelligence is worth analysing. If ya see what I mean?

Ben
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trog
post Jan 10 2006, 04:31 PM
Post #14



*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,933
Joined: 14-January 04
Member No.: 197



I also read you would need a lens about the size of a football field to be able to optically zoom into the moon in order to view something the size of an American Flag or a few feet wide.

Spy satellites are only 200 miles above the earth. the moon is 1/6th the mass as the earth but it a hell of alot farther then 200 miles away. Abouit 1000 times that. So thats why you can read a car licence plate (using special software with it) then seeing a flag on the moon.

the ESA sent a probe to the moon. I havnt seen any of the close up photos yet. Maybe check the European Space Agency and see if they have photos of the American landing area. I know the Chinese are sending up a probe as well, but they dont like to give out information. We may never see their photos.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 


Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st November 2008 - 12:02 AM