Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15
Waspie_Dwarf

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

2,594 posts in this topic

Apollo Moon Missions Tracked

Observers of all missions

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment". Vasily Mishin ("The Moon Programme That Faltered."), in Spaceflight. 33 (March 1991), pages 2–3 describes how the Soviet Moon programme lost energy after the Apollo landing.

The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.

The NASA Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) was a world-wide network of stations that tracked the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab missions. Most MSFN stations were only needed during the launch, Earth orbit and landing phases of the lunar missions, but three "deep space" sites with larger antennas provided continuous coverage during the trans-lunar, trans-earth and lunar mission phases. Today, these three sites form the NASA Deep Space Network: the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex near Goldstone, California; the Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex near Madrid, Spain; and the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, in Tidbinbilla, near Canberra, Australia.

Although most MSFN stations were NASA-owned, they employed many local citizens. NASA also contracted the Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Australia, to supplement the three deep space sites, most famously during the Apollo 11 EVA as documented in Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia and portrayed (humorously and not quite accurately) in the movie The Dish. The Parkes Observatory is not NASA-owned; it is, and always has been, owned and operated by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), a research agency of the Australian government.

Several other Australian sites which are no longer part of the Deep Space Network were also involved in relaying Apollo lunar transmissions. The deep space (lunar) tracking station was originally Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station. Carnarvon Tracking Station was one of the smaller and more numerous MSFN sites used primarily to support the near-earth segments of Apollo missions, though it also relayed data from the ALSEP lunar surface experiments. Due to its location on Australia's west coast, Carnarvon played a special role in the Apollo trans lunar injection and atmospheric reentry phases. Deakin Switching Centre routed the Apollo television broadcasts.

It would have been relatively easy for NASA to avoid using the Parkes Observatory to receive the Apollo 11 EVA television signals by scheduling the EVA at an earlier time when the Goldstone station could provide complete coverage.

http://www.publish.c...per/AS01038.htm

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

Chang'e 2

China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres (4.3 ft). It spotted traces of the Apollo landings.

The scientists also spotted traces of the previous Apollo mission in the images, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China's lunar exploration project. Several countries, including the United States, have obtained lunar images with higher resolution, but have not published full-coverage images of the moon with a resolution of seven meters or greater, as China has done, Tong said.

http://news.xinhuane...c_131393210.htm

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all I needed to say??? Thanks for finally admitting it??

You don't have a clue about what I've said. If you did, you'd have seen me point it out, repeatedly. Here's some examples you obviously didn't read.......

I suppose you don't even know I DIRECTLY RESPONDED TO YOUR POST ON THIS??....

frenat, on 27 October 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

What does it have to do with wires? Are you just trolling now? YOU claimed they did everything with wires. YOU claimed they were edited out just like any other movie. YOU need to show how they did that in real time on a demonstrably live video. Support YOUR claim.

And here's what I told you, in part.....

And here's one more time I mentioned it, just for good measure...

Pretty much sums up your entire experience here and elsewhere and explains why you keep asking me the same questions I've already responded to, then you accuse ME of "avoiding" them!!.

you've already admitted you can't prove a thing. No need to get snippy admitting it more. Although answering some of the MANY questions you've avoided over the past few years might be nice. As for providing YOU a vidoe to help you prove or disprove YOUR theory, I already said your track record shows you'll likely avoid it anyway. Start answering your outstanding questions and maybe you'll find you get treated differently

Edited by frenat
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, don't alter my own quotes, which you did here. It's a goofball tactic.

As for pointing other radio telscopes, cite the specifc telescopes you claim tracked Apollo to the moon. However, even without seeing them, I'm quite sure a probe coud have easily accounted for it.

I've already shown you one "expert" was wrong abouth being "impossible to fake". And now it seems a second "expert" is wrong about it too.

You also said..

"If we can pull that off, why not send astronauts along for the ride?"

Well, it's obvious that we CAN pull it off, as shown in the document I last cited, and/or using unmanned probes.

Why do you think that's more difficult than actually sending a manned craft to the moon? We already had unmanned probes going to the moon before Apollo In case you aren't aware, those probes also sent signals back to Earth. We also had the ability to do the simulations.

You have it completely backwards, and how.

First of all, you need to improve your comprehension skills. I did not use a quote from you, that was an excerpt from the link I mentioned. If you had bothered to read it, you'd have known it was from a guy who actually did the tracking, in other words, someone who knows what he is talking about). Reading it, in fact, would have made your post moot. I do thank you, though, for corroborating. It's pretty obvious who doesn't "get it". Furthermore, avoidance is a goofball tactic.

Edited by Gaden
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont believe I have ever seen a case of willful ignorance this clear before.

Turb.... what would it take for you to accept the landings as fact??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for pointing other radio telscopes, cite the specifc telescopes you claim tracked Apollo to the moon. However, even without seeing them, I'm quite sure a probe coud have easily accounted for it.

It is not a radio telescope, but I have already pointed out that James Young tracked the Apollo missions from Table Top Mountain.

LINK - Bill Keel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I belong to a newsgroup of ex-Honeysuckle Creek personnel. I quoted Turbs comments, provided a link to the thread, asked if anyone had any comments regarding Turb's assertion that they were under NASA control.

Most quite understandably declined, correctly positing that people like Turbo will not accept anything they say that contradicts their beliefs, and so to try and rebut Turbs was a waste of effort. Some people, though, did choose to reply and so I present these: one short and two long.

Hi there!

I was a recorder operator @Hsk in 68/69 .. did 8,9,10,&11 You will find photos of me in the the HSK files. I'm now 70 .. and living in Thailand where I can afford to eat!

I was hired by a contractor called STC cables .. They were contracting to the department of supply, and that was contracting to NASA ... And No.. we did not always do what we were told to do .. we sometimes argued a better way .. when we had a point .. our guys were very committed and very sharp ..(And still are ).

SRT exercises arrived on a tape as far as I know ... and then we all had to get around the difficulties presented to us ... There are people here that will know the details.

In retrospect I'd say that it was totally impossible to hoax this stuff .. The computing power of the whole of the network in those days, was less than is in your mobile phone now .. It was simply not possible to send stuff to our station and have it sent back out!

The slow scan TV was beamed out by microwave to Canberra ,.. where a standard TV camera was pointed at the monitor and the resulting converted signal went to the network! The guy standing next to me was <name redacted by request>.. It took two of us to load a tape onto the VCR used then.!!

On the other side of this coin .. I'm quite sure that the story one of these guys is on about in another video .. the claim us that NASA went to the moon to pick up something they knew was there ... Is hot air as well, because the '11 spacecraft was lucky to land at all, and after the computer guidance failed it was landed manually at the last possible moment, with very little reserve fuel left ... There is NO way that they would have been able to control where they landed .. They just wanted a flat spot ANYWHERE! There is an animation showing the landing moves on the NASA site.

There was however, a heap of stuff that was kept secret and still is .. On the way to the moon .. second day of the "Translunar coast" We woke the guys through our station at about 4 am our time .. That was moon rise at the time in Canberra. The chat was about another space craft ... "Is it still there" was the opening line as I remember hearing it! " hang on .. I'll go have a look" ... some minute later ... " yes its still there " ... " can you tell how big it is ?" ... " no I don't know how far away it is!"... " Ok .. we will debrief you later". No one else on this planet had the capability to be there!

The preamble to that was in MAD station the pass before ours .. ..." Uh .. where is the CS4 ?" .. "Don't know .. I'll check it out" .. " ... Its 6000 miles from you and heading in a different direction .. Why?" ... "Huh .. well I guess its not that then .. "

It was not the only one of these adventures .. there were lots ... including a sighting of a parked craft from the lunar buggy .. up the hill and off camera! ... and they are still happening .. with the occasional film from the space station sneaking out.

On a later mission they did pick up a piece of one of the surveyors .. and bring it home .. NASA added it to heaps of metal and coined some medals for everyone in the network .. I have one!

I'm not generally a gullible person ...

(I'm not sure if I have permission to post their name, so I'll leave it out)

Next, an observation for Turbs:

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

Stan Anderson

ARIA Control, 1967-71

I think I've been across this group before, and I think I was the author of the quote (repeated below). So have no more to add. There are still quite a number of us who either had to be part of the hoax, or somehow taken in by it. And, by extension, all the other missions before and after Apollo, manned and unmanned, that many of us were actively involved with. You can throw that in the ring if you like.

Mike Dinn -- Canberra

"But there is an even stronger and more pertinent argument involving "telemetry". There was a world-wide tracking network providing communications to and from the various Apollo mission elements and although the people involved in doing this were indirectly paid by the project, they were not all US government employees or even citizens. So they would have had to have been part of the conspiracy or taken in by it.

And as I was the Australian citizen employed by the Australian government responsible for running the operations at the prime Australian tracking site here near Canberra I can vouch for the scientific/engineering fact that we pointed our antenna at the trajectory to, at and from the moon and transmitted and received radio signals containing commands, telemetry, television together with navigation info from antenna angles, Doppler frequencies and two way range delays. Impossible to fake."

Thank you to all the people who replied, and thank you for your efforts in achieving what I consider to be our greatest achievement ever. And fear not: for every one person that claims Apollo was faked, there are 100,000 that know better and appreciate the dedication of people like you.

Edited by Obviousman
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to say thanks to all who responded, I especially liked Stan Anderson's quote "I’m glad to see that your comprehensive analysis of Project Apollo isn’t complicated by any knowledge of the subject.” I had a close call when I read that, as I was sipping coffee at the time.

Good work, Obviousman. (I feel I need to be using a deep, booming voice when I say that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a fact There are really no conspiracies about the Moon Landings,only people with out any logic or common sence !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you've already admitted you can't prove a thing. No need to get snippy admitting it more.

Dealing with a brick wall is frustrating.

As for providing YOU a vidoe to help you prove or disprove YOUR theory, I already said your track record shows you'll likely avoid it anyway.

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.

Start answering your outstanding questions and maybe you'll find you get treated differently

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a fact There are really no conspiracies about the Moon Landings,only people with out any logic or common sence !

I guess there are those who just can't catch the message that there is no evidence the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed. Seems there are those who can't accept the reality of the Apollo moon missions despite the overwhelming evidence.

Apollo 14

Return, splashdown and quarantine

On the way back to Earth, the crew conducted the first U.S. materials processing experiments in space.

The command module Kitty Hawk splashed down in the South Pacific Ocean on February 9, 1971 at 21:05 [uTC], approximately 760 nautical miles (1,410 km) south of American Samoa. After recovery by the ship USS New Orleans, the crew was flown to Pago Pago International Airport in Tafuna for a reception before being flown on a C-141 cargo plane to Honolulu. The Apollo 14 astronauts were the last lunar explorers to be quarantined on their return from the Moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_14

Apollo lunar landing launch window: The controlling factors and constraints

http://history.nasa....window/lw1.html

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, you need to improve your comprehension skills. I did not use a quote from you, that was an excerpt from the link I mentioned. If you had bothered to read it, you'd have known it was from a guy who actually did the tracking, in other words, someone who knows what he is talking about). Reading it, in fact, would have made your post moot. I do thank you, though, for corroborating. It's pretty obvious who doesn't "get it". Furthermore, avoidance is a goofball tactic.

Do you see the sentence below, in italics?

So it's obviously NOT "impossible to fake".

I wrote it. And you posted it. So you DID quote me after all, right?

Now, do see what I've bolded below?

blah, blah, blah, blah

So it's obviously NOT "impossible to fake".

blah, blah, blah

You posted it as my quote - that I said all of it.

Perhaps you meant "blah, blah, blah" to note that material was posted before and after my quote. But it failed to do that. Nothing indicates what I did say from what I didn't say. No quotation marks. No italics. No bolding. Nothing.

You need to improve your comprehension skills, as well as your writing skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Apollo 15 Hammer-Feather Drop

At the end of the last Apollo 15 moon walk, Commander David Scott (pictured above) performed a live demonstration for the television cameras. He held out a geologic hammer and a feather and dropped them at the same time. Because they were essentially in a vacuum, there was no air resistance and the feather fell at the same rate as the hammer, as Galileo had concluded hundreds of years before - all objects released together fall at the same rate regardless of mass. Mission Controller Joe Allen described the demonstration in the "Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report":

During the final minutes of the third extravehicular activity, a short demonstration experiment was conducted. A heavy object (a 1.32-kg aluminum geological hammer) and a light object (a 0.03-kg falcon feather) were released simultaneously from approximately the same height (approximately 1.6 m) and were allowed to fall to the surface. Within the accuracy of the simultaneous release, the objects were observed to undergo the same acceleration and strike the lunar surface simultaneously, which was a result predicted by well-established theory, but a result nonetheless reassuring considering both the number of viewers that witnessed the experiment and the fact that the homeward journey was based critically on the validity of the particular theory being tested.

Joe Allen, NASA SP-289, Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report, Summary of Scientific Results, p. 2-11

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont believe I have ever seen a case of willful ignorance this clear before.

Turb.... what would it take for you to accept the landings as fact??

Two ways, but only one is feasible.

To go there is the best way, but it's clearly not possible.

Second best way is with telescopes, but still only possible for a few people able to view personally. And I'd have to see it with my own eyes to accept it.

Would the opposite - seeing no sites - convince you it was a hoax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dealing with a brick wall is frustrating.

Yes.... it is.... so now you understand how we feel when dealing with you.

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.

*sigh*.

Must you be reminded YET AGAIN just who has the burden of proof here?

Here's a hint: IT IS YOUR BURDEN TO PROVE YOUR "WIRES" THEORY CORRECT.

Two ways, but only one is feasible.

To go there is the best way, but it's clearly not possible.

Second best way is with telescopes, but still only possible for a few people able to view personally. And I'd have to see it with my own eyes to accept it.

Would the opposite - seeing no sites - convince you it was a hoax?

So, please tell us... which telescopes exist today that are able to image the landing sites in enough detail to see the equipment / artifacts present there?

Oh, and if you can do it without referring to your woefully misinformed theories involving your kindergarten-level understanding of the VLT, that would help speed the process along.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont believe I have ever seen a case of willful ignorance this clear before.

Turb.... what would it take for you to accept the landings as fact??

Apparently, he has been overlooking and dismissing overwhelming evidence that proved beyond any doubt, the Apollo moon missions were not hoaxed. Photos and tracking information from countries around the world have been presented, which confirmed the reality of the Apollo moon landings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1414144/Worlds-biggest-telescope-to-prove-Americans-really-walked-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/public/images/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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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:

"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...

eso0222a.jpg

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

Edited by Czero 101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.