1967 replies to this topic

[turbonium]

Who claimed it was all shown to us 'live', in 'real-time'? Not me.

And who claimed wires weren't used, because it was shown to us 'live', in 'real-time'? Not me.

So who do you think has the burden of proving these claims?

The one who made the claims.

But not in your twisted little world, where you can make a claim, and then it's up to others to DISPROVE it!. The person who made the claim doesn't have to prove it first. The burden is on everyone else to try and disprove it!  

So it's up to me to DISprove the claim it was shown 'live', because I didn't make the claim, right?

Now I have a claim - that Eskimos landed on the moon first in flying igloos, back in1784, Your theory is that Apollo landed the first man on the moon, in 1969,  So you have to disprove my claim. It's your burden.

Amazing logic of Czero...

[turbonium]

We can't image the artifacts with the VLT - because the artifacts aren't there to BE imaged!

If they were there, the VLT certainly could image them, and it would have imaged them back in 2001.

The VLT imaging is a complex process, but it can indeed produce images which resolve to about the size of a lunar rover. If a lunar rover was actually there, anyway.

[turbonium]

Do you think an astronaut said 'Sure, it's amazing to land the LM's on the moon again and again, but I wonder if decades from now we might be able to take images of it as a tiny dot!!'  

But we made it a reality, all the same.

[frenat]

turbonium, on 17 November 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

Dealing with a brick wall is frustrating.



First of all, it is YOUR claim the footage/video in question was shown to us 'live', 'real-time'. And that rules out wires, no time to edit anything out.

That is YOUR claim.

And it is YOU who must support it.

Or else admit you cannot.
  



After your last fiasco, may I suggest you review the thread and see if I've already answered them.

Then, f you're sure I didn't, let me know, and I'll gladly answer them.

How about showing a video(s) on the current issue, in the meantime?

Prove your claim first.  Oh that's right.  You already said you can't/won't.  What I added was simply what your claim would have to account for, really just fleshing out YOUR claim.  But hey, whenever you get around to proving your claim, I'll do mine.

Edited by frenat, 17 November 2012 - 02:25 PM.

[skyeagle409]

frenat, on 17 November 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Prove your claim first.  Oh that's right.  You already said you can't/won't.  What I added was simply what your claim would have to account for, really just fleshing out YOUR claim.  But hey, whenever you get around to proving your claim, I'll do mine.

He has been asked to prove his claims and each time, he comes up empty-handed. The following information is a valid reason why his Apollo moon hoax claim falls flat on its back.

Quote

Apollo program

The Apollo program was designed to land humans on the Moon and bring them safely back to Earth. Six of the missions (Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) achieved this goal. Apollos 7 and 9 were Earth orbiting missions to test the Command and Lunar Modules, and did not return lunar data. Apollos 8 and 10 tested various components while orbiting the Moon, and returned photography of the lunar surface. Apollo 13 did not land on the Moon due to a malfunction, but also returned photographs. The six missions that landed on the Moon returned a wealth of scientific data and almost 400 kilograms of lunar samples. Experiments included soil mechanics, meteoroids, seismic, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields, and solar wind experiments.

http://nssdc.gsfc.na...nar/apollo.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

New lunar missions

Post-Apollo lunar exploration missions have located and imaged artifacts of the Apollo program remaining on the Moon's surface.

Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories. Though this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group — the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups.

After the images shown here were taken, the LRO mission moved into a lower orbit for higher resolution camera work. All of the sites have since been re-imaged at higher resolution.
Further imaging in 2012 shows the shadows cast by the flags planted by the astronauts on all Apollo landing sites. The exception is that of Apollo 11, which matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being blown over by the lander's rocket exhaust on leaving the moon.

http://en.wikipedia....o_Moon_landings

Edited by skyeagle409, 17 November 2012 - 03:02 PM.

[Czero 101]

turbonium, on 17 November 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

We can't image the artifacts with the VLT - because the artifacts aren't there to BE imaged!

If they were there, the VLT certainly could image them, and it would have imaged them back in 2001.

The VLT imaging is a complex process, but it can indeed produce images which resolve to about the size of a lunar rover. If a lunar rover was actually there, anyway.

So the part where its impossible for the VLT to create images of the surface Moon since the amount of light required to create an actual image in its Interferometry configuration (where it has the EFFECTIVE resolution of about 2 meters at Lunar distance) means that the VLTI can only create images of objects over 1,000°C (i.e. stars and other objects visible only in near- to mid-range infrared) means as much to you now as it did when you first brought up this idea around 7 years or so ago...

Absolutely nothing.

Nice to see that the level of your ignorance about your own argument hasn't changed at all...


Oh no, wait... its COMPLETELY SAD AND PATHETIC (though completely not surprising). that you haven't learned thing one in that amount of time.







Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 17 November 2012 - 07:00 PM.

[turbonium]

frenat, on 17 November 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Prove your claim first.  Oh that's right.  You already said you can't/won't.  What I added was simply what your claim would have to account for, really just fleshing out YOUR claim.  But hey, whenever you get around to proving your claim, I'll do mine.

What you "added" was simply YOUR CLAIM.

And it is YOU that would have to account for it, since it is YOUR CLAIM.

That is your burden, not mine.

You claim it was 'live, in 'real-time', so wires couldn't have been used for the huge jumps. You haven't shown any evidence for your claim.

YOU made the claim, YOU have to back it up.

Do you have any evidence, or not?

[turbonium]

Czero 101, on 17 November 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

So the part where its impossible for the VLT to create images of the surface Moon since the amount of light required to create an actual image in its Interferometry configuration (where it has the EFFECTIVE resolution of about 2 meters at Lunar distance) means that the VLTI can only create images of objects over 1,000°C (i.e. stars and other objects visible only in near- to mid-range infrared) means as much to you now as it did when you first brought up this idea around 7 years or so ago...

Absolutely nothing.

Nice to see that the level of your ignorance about your own argument hasn't changed at all...


Oh no, wait... its COMPLETELY SAD AND PATHETIC (though completely not surprising). that you haven't learned thing one in that amount of time.

Let's go over their quotes, shall we?...

Dr Richard West, an astronomer at the VLT, confirmed that his team was aiming to achieve "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites".

The first attempt to spot the spacecraft will be made using only one of the VLT's four telescope mirrors, which are fitted with special "adaptive optics" to cancel the distorting effect of the Earth's atmosphere. A trial run of the equipment this summer produced the sharpest image of the Moon taken from the Earth, showing details 400ft across from a distance of 238,000 miles.
The VLT team hopes to improve on this, with the aim of detecting clear evidence for the presence of the landers. The base of the lunar modules measured about 10ft across, but would cast a much longer shadow under ideal conditions.
Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use the power of all four mirrors. "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said.

http://www.telegraph...ed-on-Moon.html


"It is correct that ESO's VLT is technically able to produce extremely sharp "images" by means of the interferometric technique when several telescopes are coupled together. It has in fact already produced a great number of outstanding results that you can see in some ESO Press Releases. Whether the resulting resolution (image sharpness) is sufficient to see "artificial" objects on the Moon remains still to be seen. I am afraid therefore that no image" exist yet.

In fact, in its interferometric mode, the VLT has indeed a resolution equivalent to about 2m at the distance of the Moon. Thus it could barely distinguish the lunar modules - in principle. However, this cannot be achieved by just taking an image but requires a long and painstaking process where an "image" could be reconstructed.

Kind regards,

Henri Boffin, PhD
ESO Public Affairs Dept"

What did you say again? Oh, right, you said...."..its impossible for the VLT to create images of the surface Moon..

Now take a look at this...

This photo (in near-infrared light at wavelength 2.3 µm) was obtained in the morning of April 30, 2002, with the NAOS-CONICA (NACO) adaptive optics (AO) camera mounted on the ESO VLT 8.2-m YEPUN telescope at the Paranal Observatory

http://www.eso.org/p...mages/eso0222a/

We have two experts on record saying the landing sites could be imaged with the VLT. We have an image of the lunar surface taken with the VLT.

Well, at least you got the "COMPLETELY SAD AND PATHETIC"  part right, But we know who really fits that description.

.

[Czero 101]

turbonium, on 18 November 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

Well, at least you got the "COMPLETELY SAD AND PATHETIC"  part right, But we know who really fits that description.

Yes... yes indeed we do, Turbs, because you are STILL makjng the same mistakes that you made in the past, assuming that the "equivalent resolution" of "about 2 meters at lunar distance" is what the VLTI is designed to create images at.

You simply still have no idea how the VLTI works, what its used for and what it can and cannot do. Instead, as you always do, you find quotes that you assume support your case, and spew them out as if they actually make it sound like you have a valid claim.

To anyone who takes a few minutes to .actually understand them - rather than cherry pick them like you constantly do - they simply do not support any claim you make, never have.... never will... no matter how many times you repeat it.

From the ESO website, specifically, the VLT / VLTI FAQ page, question 18

Quote

Q: Could the VLT take a picture of the Moon-landing sites?

A: Yes, but the images would not be detailed enough to show the equipment left behind by the astronauts. Using its adaptive optics system, the VLT has already taken one of the sharpest ever images of the lunar surface as seen from Earth: http://www.eso.org/p...c/news/eso0222/. However, the smallest details visible in this image are still about one hundred metres on the surface of the Moon, while the parts of the lunar modules which are left on the Moon are less than 10 metres in size. A telescope 200 metres in diameter would be needed to show them. Although the VLT, when used as an interferometer (VLTI), reaches the same equivalent resolution, it cannot be used to observe the Moon. You may be wondering whether the Hubble Space Telescope would have better luck. In fact, while a space telescope is not affected by the atmosphere of the Earth, it is not substantially closer to the Moon. Also, the Hubble is smaller than the VLT, so it isn’t able to obtain images that show the surface of the Moon with higher resolution. The sharpest images of the lunar landers have been taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

So, yes, Turbs... we really do know who still fits the "COMPLETELY SAD AND PATHETIC"... as usual, it is you.

This quote, for instance:

Quote

"It is correct that ESO's VLT is technically able to produce extremely sharp "images" by means of the interferometric technique when several telescopes are coupled together. It has in fact already produced a great number of outstanding results that you can see in some ESO Press Releases. Whether the resulting resolution (image sharpness) is sufficient to see "artificial" objects on the Moon remains still to be seen. I am afraid therefore that no image" exist yet.

In fact, in its interferometric mode, the VLT has indeed a resolution equivalent to about 2m at the distance of the Moon. Thus it could barely distinguish the lunar modules - in principle. However, this cannot be achieved by just taking an image but requires a long and painstaking process where an "image" could be reconstructed.

Kind regards,

Henri Boffin, PhD
ESO Public Affairs Dept"

Did you notice where he said "resolution equivalent to about 2m at the distance of the Moon" and "could barely distinguish the lunar modules - in principle"... WHy do you think he used those specifc phrases, Turbs?

And what about where he said "requires a long and painstaking process where an "image" could be reconstructed". Why do you think he put the IMAGE in quotes, Turbs...?

THINK.

REALLY.

HARD.

I know its not your forté, seeing as you've continually proven to everyone just how devoted you are to keeping yourself blindingly ignorant in regards to this topic.... but if you can put aside that Mt. Everest of Ignorance in your head just for a minute and try to understand why Dr. Boffin said those things the way he did, you might be able to make some actual progress towards an honest-to-goodness understanding of something relating to this topic for the first time in at least 7 or more years.

As usual, though, I hold no hope that you actually will think about it or come to any kind of realization of just how silly you make yourself look by constantly providing information that only serves to show your ignorance and just how wrong you actually are.

No, you'll just stay safe and warm wrapped up in you magical blanket of blissful, willful ignorance as always. As I said before, you really should stop providing sources since none of them so far have actually supported you in any way....





Cz

ETA...

Oh, and regarding the "sharpest ever images of the lunar surface as seen from Earth" mentioned earlier, here it is...



Image Source: http://www.eso.org/p...c/news/eso0222/

Edited by Czero 101, 18 November 2012 - 09:56 AM.

[Obviousman]

"The VLT team hopes to improve on this,..."

"They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said.

And from your link:

"The pixel size is that recorded by NACO, 0.027 arcsec, or approx. 50 metres on the Moon."

Do you know what achiving a 10 foot resolution means when something is 10 foot across? It means it turns up as a single pixel.

Please stop distorting what other people say to try and make it support your position.

[frenat]

turbonium, on 18 November 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

What you "added" was simply YOUR CLAIM.

And it is YOU that would have to account for it, since it is YOUR CLAIM.

That is your burden, not mine.

You claim it was 'live, in 'real-time', so wires couldn't have been used for the huge jumps. You haven't shown any evidence for your claim.

YOU made the claim, YOU have to back it up.

Do you have any evidence, or not?

What part of I will when you will do you not understand?  Do you really think everybody here doesn't realize that you're just trying to distract from your MANY unanswered questions?

Edited by frenat, 18 November 2012 - 01:43 PM.

[rambaldi]

What would be the point of having images from the VLT anyway?

It's not as if turbonium could actually look through the telescope's eyepiece. It would take about 3 seconds for him to claim that the new images must be fake.

Edited by rambaldi, 20 November 2012 - 02:17 PM.

[flyingswan]

I don't think this has been mentioned here before, a new piece of third-party evidence for Apollo.  The link includes an account of what happened to one of the Apollo 17 commemorative samples, the one given to China:
http://www.tianshann...ent_7052742.htm

According to the Google translation:

　　Ouyang Ziyuan, 1978, the Americans gave the Central Committee sent two gifts: a Chinese flag Americans brought back from the moon, and the other is the American spacecraft collected back from the moon stone.
　　Flag can not be verified, the stone to me. "Ouyang said, when the Hua Guofeng President will be a stone embedded in the plexiglass to him, he carefully plexiglass broke down, the only piece of the size of soybean stone in half, half for research, and the other half sent to the Beijing Planetarium.
　　The research, his final confirmation stone "typical moon stone, 'Apollo 17' collection.

[Czero 101]

flyingswan, on 20 November 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

I don't think this has been mentioned here before, a new piece of third-party evidence for Apollo.  The link includes an account of what happened to one of the Apollo 17 commemorative samples, the one given to China:
http://www.tianshann...ent_7052742.htm

According to the Google translation:

　 　Ouyang Ziyuan, 1978, the Americans gave the Central Committee sent two gifts: a Chinese flag Americans brought back from the moon, and the other is the American spacecraft collected back from the moon stone.
　 　Flag can not be verified, the stone to me. "Ouyang said, when the Hua Guofeng President will be a stone embedded in the plexiglass to him, he carefully plexiglass broke down, the only piece of the size of soybean stone in half, half for research, and the other half sent to the Beijing Planetarium.
　　The research, his final confirmation stone "typical moon stone, 'Apollo 17' collection.

Swanny...

You know full well that Turbs will just take this and fabricate yet another baseless, evidence-less, unprovable cockamamie theory that China is "just saying that to keep the lie alive" and its all part of their plan to hold the US hostage...

Something along the lines of: if the US doesn't continue to buy cheap stuff from China and borrow untold amounts of cash from them, China will reveal The Truth™ about the Moon landings....

And this article will be some sort of example - or better yet, a "hidden warning" - of how easy it would be for them to expose The Truth™ to the world....








Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 20 November 2012 - 06:48 PM.

[turbonium]

So here's a snippet from the source itself, just as you posted ....  

Czero 101, on 18 November 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

Q: Could the VLT take a picture of the Moon-landing sites?

A: Yes, but the images would not be detailed enough to show the equipment left behind by the astronauts

So what was YOUR claim again?

You claimed .."..its impossible for the VLT to create images of the surface Moon..."

Are you not aware that this proves it IS possible??...

"Q: Could the VLT take a picture of the Moon-landing sites?

A: Yes,.."

The only thing impossible here is for you to admit to being wrong. That requires one to posess some degree of character, and integrity.