1967 replies to this topic

[Czero 101]

turbonium, on 24 November 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

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



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,.."

Yes... and did you notice the part where it was talking about individual telescopes at the VLT imaging the Moon INDIVIDUALLY, not when the system was being used with all telescopes in concert in Interferometry mode, you know... as the VLTI... which is what I've been talking about the whole time and which is what forms the backbone of your entire claim...

Funny how you conveniently avoided this part of the quote:

Quote

Although the VLT, when used as an interferometer (VLTI), reaches the same equivalent resolution, it cannot be used to observe the Moon.

Funny how you completely ignored that part of the quote... Why is that, Turbs? Why ignore that part of the quote that more directly and more accurately deals with the claim you've made? You know...  the claim you've made where the VLTI should be able to image the surface of the Moon with sufficient resolution to show the equipment left there by the Apollo missions?

Oh wait.. I see... its because the part that you ignore is the part that PROVES YOU WRONG.

You talk about the individual VLT telescopes and the VLTI as if they were the same thing, operating under the same principles, when in fact, they are not.

Unfortunately you are so blinded by your willful ignorance and sheer incompetence that in the 7 YEARS you've been a proponent of this little gem of BS you have fabricated, you

STILL.

HAVEN'T.

LEARNED.

THE.

DIFFERENCE.

Please... tell the class, Turbs... at what wavelength does the VLTI achieve its greatest resolution...?

*Theme music from Jeopardy*

*BUZZZ*

oo!... Sorry Turbs... your time is up.

2 nanometers... that is the answer we were looking for...

Maybe you can tell us what part of the light spectrum that represents...?

*Theme music from Jeopardy*

*BUZZZ*

Infrared... Infrared is the answer we were looking for.

Which now brings us to this...

From the Wiki page on the VLT

Quote

In its interferometric operating mode, the light from the telescopes is reflected off mirrors and directed through tunnels to a central beam combining laboratory. The VLTI is intended to achieve an effective angular resolution of 0.002 arcsecond at a wavelength of 2 µm.

and...

Quote

Because of the many mirrors involved in the optical train, about 95 percent of the light is lost before reaching the instruments at a wavelength of 1 µm, 90 percent at 2 µm and 75 percent at 10 µm. This refers to reflection off 32 surfaces including the Coudé train, the star separator, the main delay line, beam compressor and feeding optics. Additionally, the interferometric technique is such that it is very efficient only for objects that are small enough that all their light is concentrated. For instance, an object with a relatively low surface brightness such as the moon cannot be observed, because its light is too diluted. Only targets which are at temperatures of more than 1,000°C have a surface brightness high enough to be observed in the mid-infrared, and objects must be at several thousands of degrees Celsius for near-infrared observations using the VLTI. This includes most of the stars in the solar neighborhood and many extragalactic objects such as bright active galactic nuclei, but this sensitivity limit rules out interferometric observations of most solar-system objects. Although the use of large telescope diameters and adaptive optics correction can improve the sensitivity, this cannot extend the reach of optical interferometry beyond nearby stars and the brightest active galactic nuclei.

So yes... When operating INDIVIDUALLY as OPTICAL TELESCOPES, the individual telescopes at the VLT can OPTICALLY image the Moon with greater resolution than has previously been possible from the surface of the Earth, as seen in the example provided in my previous post, however, that resolution is still insufficient to show artifacts at the Apollo landing sites.

When operating with all telescopes in concert in Interferometric operation, the VLTI can produce images in the near- to far-infrared wavelengths at a much greater equivalent resolution, but due to the limitations and light loss inherent in this operational mode, it is not possible to take an interferometric image of the surface of the Moon.

You need to understand this, Turbs...

Optical and Interferometric telescopes operate under different principles and yield different results.

Its sad and pathetic that you would hold this piece of garbage theory up for 7 YEARS and still not know just how wrong you are and always have been about the capabilities of the VLT / VLTI.

Sad and pathetic... though seeing as its you, its hardly surprising.

Quote

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

That's funny Turbs... because the only one here showing those qualities, and has consistently and provably done so here, is YOU.







Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 24 November 2012 - 06:25 AM.

[Czero 101]

Czero 101, on 24 November 2012 - 05:41 AM, said:

2 nanometers... that is the answer we were looking for...

Correction... 2 micrometers (2µm), is actually the correct answer...

And to put it in context, Infrared ranges from 0.74 micrometers (µm) to 300 µm, while visible light ranges from 0.39µm to 0.74µm (390 - 740 nanometers (nm) or 3900 - 7400 ångström)



Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 24 November 2012 - 07:07 AM.

[turbonium]

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

You were wrong. You know it, but you just can't admit it.

It's still wrong.

There's no excuse here.

And I'm quite aware of VLT and VLTI as two distinct entities. Images of the moon can be created by VLT and VLTI, while the processes differ, an image is possible by both means.

And that is my point. It isn't how it's done, it's that an image CAN be created.

There was a project to image the (supposed) landing sites. The first attempt was planned as VLT, single scope. And if it didn't work out, they'd go with VLTI (multiple scopes). And that should get worthwhile results, according to them.

You think who said this, and what they said. And why they said it.

If VLTI wasn't an option, do you think they'd be saying it WAS?

Explain that one. They are either lying, for no reason I can fathom. or they are all idiots who don't know squat about VLTI.

They would know what the VLTI can do, or cannot do. Indeed so.

You doubt this?

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 24 November 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

You were wrong. You know it, but you just can't admit it....There's no excuse here.

Actually, there is no excuse for anyone to claim the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed in the face of overwhelming evidence and confirmations from countries around the globe, and make such a false claim in the absence of evidence.

[Czero 101]

Ok, fine, Turbs, we'll play it your way...

I was mistaken when I said the VLT couldn't image the surface of the Moon.

What I should have said, and what I have subsequently said, and what I have shown has been said by by those who operate the VLT and the VLTI (in the examples I have provided AND in the examples you have provided) is that the images produced by the VLT are of insufficient resolution  to see the Apollo artifacts, and the "images" created by the VLTI are unusable to view the Apollo artifacts, assuming that the VLTI could even acquire an image of the surface of the Moon given that it is, in effect "too dark" to be "seen" by the Interferometer.

Does that make your theory any more plausible? No.

Does that remove your burden to prove this theory of your correct, something you haven't been able to do for 7 years? No

Does that make your understanding of how the VLTI works and what kind of imagery it creates any better or clearer? Obviously not.

So there it is... I've admitted my mistake, Turbs.

From this point forward you will be expected and required to do the same with all your errors, mis-quotings, misunderstandings, cherry-picking and of course, the inevitable fabrications you have earned a reputation for creating.

Will you have the same testicular fortitude to admit your many egregious mistakes with regards to all your long debunked theories regarding this topic...?

*Snip*

The bottom line here, however, is that once again, verifiable evidence that defeats your claim has been provided to you, and also once again, you have been shown how the evidence which you believe supports your theory, actually doesn't and actually lends more weight to disproving your ideas.








Cz

Edited by Karlis, 25 November 2012 - 11:34 AM.
UM posing rule: 5e. Disrespectful conduct: Do not be rude, unpleasant or disrespectful towards other members - always be polite and courteous.

[rambaldi]

Czero 101, on 24 November 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

What I should have said, and what I have subsequently said, and what I have shown has been said by by those who operate the VLT and the VLTI (in the examples I have provided AND in the examples you have provided) is that the images produced by the VLT are of insufficient resolution  to see the Apollo artifacts, and the "images" created by the VLTI are unusable to view the Apollo artifacts, assuming that the VLTI could even acquire an image of the surface of the Moon given that it is, in effect "too dark" to be "seen" by the Interferometer.

Which is what 99% of the participants of this thread comprehended anyway.

And I still wonder how this new pictures would be proof to the remaining Moonhoaxers...

[turbonium]

Czero 101, on 24 November 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Ok, fine, Turbs, we'll play it your way...

I was mistaken when I said the VLT couldn't image the surface of the Moon.

Congratulations!  First time you've ever admitted to a faulty claim ..Perhaps there's still some hope for a mature, rational debate on the issues going forward......   

Czero 101, on 24 November 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

What I should have said, and what I have subsequently said, and what I have shown has been said by by those who operate the VLT and the VLTI (in the examples I have provided AND in the examples you have provided) is that the images produced by the VLT are of insufficient resolution  to see the Apollo artifacts, and the "images" created by the VLTI are unusable to view the Apollo artifacts, assuming that the VLTI could even acquire an image of the surface of the Moon given that it is, in effect "too dark" to be "seen" by the Interferometer.

Since neither the VLT nor the VLTI have never been used for this specific purpose, it's not hard to see why there's no landing site images!! They haven't tried to get them, so what do you expect?.

And my point is that images CAN be created. We don't know how those images would come out, because they haven't tried......or did they?.

They DID have such a project, so they obviously DID have a good reason for doing it - ie:to produce images that are "sufficiently sharp" in detail to identify some of the artifacts at (supposed) landing sites

The plan is ..

First step - using the VLT. They aren't sure if that will succeed. But they obviously consider it worth a go.
But you claim it's a waste of time, right? Yup, you know more about the VLT's resolution than those experts, I guess!!

Second step - using the VLTI. The experts say this should work. But again, you know better than them. You say images would be "unusable".

That about it?   .   

Czero 101, on 24 November 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Does that make your theory any more plausible? No.

What theory do you mean here?

Czero 101, on 24 November 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Does that remove your burden to prove this theory of your correct, something you haven't been able to do for 7 years? No

Ah, you mean the whole moon hoax theory in general, then? It's not meant to be, Stick to the issue.  

Czero 101, on 24 November 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Does that make your understanding of how the VLTI works and what kind of imagery it creates any better or clearer? Obviously not.

Oh, right! I almost forgot that you know much more than all those stupid experts who worked there!!,

Czero 101, on 24 November 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

From this point forward you will be expected and required to do the same with all your errors, mis-quotings, misunderstandings, cherry-picking and of course, the inevitable fabrications you have earned a reputation for creating.

Will you have the same testicular fortitude to admit your many egregious mistakes with regards to all your long debunked theories regarding this topic...?

Delusional, and quite sad.

You must be joking, no?

Who appointed you 'Supreme Lord of Honesty and Truth'?

I "will be expected and required",,to obey all thou commands, O Grand Poobah?

If that's how much you puff yourself up after just one concession, I'd hate to see what horrors you'd unleash on us by admitting to a couple more!!

Do you really want ME TO address whatever you think I've missed?

If you do, it's time you show the specifics.

If you don't, it's time to stop shovelimg your crapola..

[Czero 101]

turbonium, on 01 December 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

Congratulations!  First time you've ever admitted to a faulty claim ..Perhaps there's still some hope for a mature, rational debate on the issues going forward......   

Then you haven't read much of my postings here have you?

As the the "mature, rational debate" part... once you actually figure out how to man up and participate in one, let us know... but we won't be holding our breath for that to be any time soon.

Quote

Since neither the VLT nor the VLTI have never been used for this specific purpose, it's not hard to see why there's no landing site images!! They haven't tried to get them, so what do you expect?.

And they haven't been used to do that because it is not possible for them to create images clear enough to see objects as small as the Apollo artifacts/

Your source confirms that FACT

My source confirms that FACT.

You seem to be unwilling or uable to accept or understand that FACT.

Quote

And my point is that images CAN be created. We don't know how those images would come out, because they haven't tried......or did they?.

Images can be created, yes.

UNUSABLE images, as confirmed by both your source and my source, which, by the way, ARE THE SAME PEOPLE.

Quote

They DID have such a project, so they obviously DID have a good reason for doing it - ie:to produce images that are "sufficiently sharp" in detail to identify some of the artifacts at (supposed) landing sites

The plan is ..

First step - using the VLT. They aren't sure if that will succeed. But they obviously consider it worth a go.
But you claim it's a waste of time, right? Yup, you know more about the VLT's resolution than those experts, I guess!!

Nope... Remember this image?



What instrument was used to take this image, Turbs...?

Here's a hint:

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

Quote

Thirty-three years after the first manned landing on the Moon, the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT) has obtained what may be the sharpest image of the lunar surface ever recorded from the ground . It was made with the NAOS-CONICA (NACO) adaptive optics camera mounted on the ESO VLT 8.2-m YEPUN telescope at the Paranal Observatory.

Quote

Second step - using the VLTI. The experts say this should work. But again, you know better than them. You say images would be "unusable".

That about it?

Nope... Read this quote from the ESO Website that I provided before but you IGNORED decided not to address:

Source:http://www.eso.org/public/about-eso/faq/faq-vlt-paranal.html#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:

No, Turbs... I don't know how better than the scientists who operate the VLT/VLTI... but apparently I can read and comprehend MUCH better than you can.

Quote

What theory do you mean here?

Ah, you mean the whole moon hoax theory in general, then? It's not meant to be, Stick to the issue.  

No, Turbs... Do keep up, would you?

I mean this ludicrous idea of yours that the VLT/VLTI can image the surface of the Moon in  sufficient detail to see the Apollo artifacts... an idea you've been bandying about for at least 7 years here...

Click HERE for a post by from August 2007 discussing this topic. (it was long enough ago that the board software no longer allows one to directly quote it. )

Quote

Oh, right! I almost forgot that you know much more than all those stupid experts who worked there!!,   

Please provide a quote where I have specifically stated that I know more than the experts.

SInce you can't, and woujldn't even if you could, I'll kindly aask you to stop putting words in my mouth, stop making up strawman argument, and keep with the discussion.

Quote

Delusional, and quite sad.

Yes.. you are.

Quote

You must be joking, no?

No Turbs... you're the only joke here... unfortunately for you, everyone here but you knows that already.

Quote

Who appointed you 'Supreme Lord of Honesty and Truth'?

The same personm who appointed you as the arbiter of fact... NO ONE.

YOU demand that I admit my mistakes, yet you continually make the same childish mistakes over and over again, displaying your absolute ignorance of this topic and of any genuine research skills, and a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

You have never once admitted you were wrong, or even admitted that you COULD be wrong.

So pardon me for holding you to the same standards that you would hold others up to.

If you are unwilling to do so, just say so now and we can once and for all put any notions of your character, honesty and integrity in their final resting place.

Quote

Do you really want ME TO address whatever you think I've missed?

If you do, it's time you show the specifics.

If you don't, it's time to stop shovelimg your crapola..

I have already... why don't you start with yet another post you IGNORED here on page 88.

I'm sure others can come up with even more issues you have dodged, avoided, danced around, ignored and abandoned... but its a LONG LIST, Turbs... you'll have to give us time to gather it all up, assuming of course you do want that refresher of your failures paraded out for all to see.....





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 01 December 2012 - 08:28 AM.

[turbonium]

Czero 101, on 01 December 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

And they haven't been used to do that because it is not possible for them to create images clear enough to see objects as small as the Apollo artifacts/

Your source confirms that FACT

My source confirms that FACT.

You seem to be unwilling or uable to accept or understand that FACT.


Images can be created, yes.

UNUSABLE images, as confirmed by both your source and my source, which, by the way, ARE THE SAME PEOPLE.

Why did they have a specific project to image the artifacts?
   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". 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. You think this expert is wrong? And who, other than you, used the term "unusable"? Try and explain a project to specifically image landing sites was done if they already knew it COULDN'T!! Why did the expert say the VLTI "..would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites,"??? Do you think he really knew they'd be "unusable" images, but somehow forgot to mention it? If he knew the VLT couldn't work, why would he lie by claiming IT MAY work? That possibilty was the very reason given for trying it first. Why say that, why do that, if it's total nonsense?   Do you see what I'm getting at here? One side must be wrong. Either the expert on the very project, or that source. If the project leader is wrong, it means he is outright lying. Or else he is a total moron. No way he's a liar or a moron. And that leaves the source as wrong. It's one or the other.

[turbonium]

Czero 101, on 01 December 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

... why don't you start with yet another post you IGNORED here on page 88.

I've already covered it, but I'll recap it once more.

Your post deals with two specific issues on the Aussie tracking stations - One - who controlled them, and Two - whether or not a simulation was possible to fool them into believing it was a genuine mission.

NASA was in control of the Aussie tracking stations. And I'm not talking about who was in 'control' of switches and knobs. A few of you still seem to think this is 'control'. It is not. They are merely operators. NASA trained them to operate the equipment.

NASA controls who does this, who does that. Not meant to be insulting, but it's analogous to a trained monkey. All you know is what the trainer told you. A bunch of wires come into the room, and a bunch of wires go out of the room. And you just flip some switches on a board in the room. That is not control.

Who feeds all the signals into and out of the room? NASA. That's who controls it. The Aussies do NOT control it.


Now the issue of whether or not a full simulation was possible, and if it could fool them that it's a genuine mission...

From all the evidence, documents, etc. it was certainly possible. A source I've posted clearly states a simulation of doppler frequencies going all the way to the moon. An Aussie who worked there claims it was impossible to fake doppler frequencies. He was wrong. Although, if anyone SHOULD have known what could be simulated, and what could not, shouldn't HE have known???

Hmm..

So what's next?

[Insaniac]

If someone landed on the moon, it wouldn't be debated right now. It would be accepted.

So what does that suggest?

[flyingswan]

Insaniac, on 01 December 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

If someone landed on the moon, it wouldn't be debated right now. It would be accepted.

Yeah, no-one ever disputes a historical event, historians are well-known for never arguing with each other.  However, you wont find a single scientist or aerospace engineer who does not accept Apollo.

Quote

So what does that suggest?

It suggests that the people who dispute Apollo lack the technical background to understand the strength of the evidence for the landings.

[DONTEATUS]

I a few words,He who see`s not what we did does not Look at what is.

[turbonium]

flyingswan, on 01 December 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Yeah, no-one ever disputes a historical event, historians are well-known for never arguing with each other.  However, you wont find a single scientist or aerospace engineer who does not accept Apollo.

It suggests that the people who dispute Apollo lack the technical background to understand the strength of the evidence for the landings.

There are two problems here.

First, you assume the only experts qualified on the hoax issue are aerospace engineers, scientists. It's not true.

Perhaps you've heard of Apollo's photographic evidence? Sure you have.

So would aerospace engineers be your idea of experts in photography, and photo analysis? No, they are not experts in this specific field.

We DO have experts in photo analysis who conclude Apollo was faked. Based on these experts alone, Apollo has a big problem.   

Aerospace engineers, etc. can keep claiming it's genuine all they want, but the photographic evidence reveals it's not.


In over 40 years, with thousands of aerospace engineers and scientists, but not one person who admits to having the slightest of doubts?

A universal belief in Apollo? Hardly.

It's a universal fear of disputing Apollo, imo.

[Obviousman]

turbonium, on 08 December 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

First, you assume the only experts qualified on the hoax issue are aerospace engineers, scientists. It's not true.

Perhaps you've heard of Apollo's photographic evidence? Sure you have.

So would aerospace engineers be your idea of experts in photography, and photo analysis? No, they are not experts in this specific field.

We DO have experts in photo analysis who conclude Apollo was faked. Based on these experts alone, Apollo has a big problem.   

Aerospace engineers, etc. can keep claiming it's genuine all they want, but the photographic evidence reveals it's not.


In over 40 years, with thousands of aerospace engineers and scientists, but not one person who admits to having the slightest of doubts?

A universal belief in Apollo? Hardly.

It's a universal fear of disputing Apollo, imo.

"I’m glad to see that your comprehensive analysis of Project Apollo isn’t complicated by any knowledge of the subject.”