Hey whats that on the moon ?

[boggle]

You have left the realms of conspiracy theory and entered the world of pure fantasy. This has nothing to do with NASA, it has every thing to do with optics.

There is no telescope yet built that has the angular resolution to image an object a few feet across a quater of a million miles away.

The best earth observation satellites could probably resolve such objects on earth (spy satellites certainly could) but they orbit just a few hundred miles up. They could not do it from 250,000 miles away.

When the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is launched in 2008 it should have the ability to observe the landing sites. Of course as it is a NASA mission the conspiracy nuts will not be silenced even by this.

From the Hubble Site, Frequently Asked Questions

you are talking gibberish yet again, for the discussion is the photos submitted for scrutny the cameras attached to each astronaut produced precise photos while you are jabbering about telescopes with computer chips.

Edited May 24, 2006 by boggle

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Keep up boggle. Read the thread. It's not that hard to follow.

[boggle]

Keep up boggle. Read the thread. It's not that hard to follow.

the expert on telescopes with a computer that weighs approximately 70 lbs. elaborates... go ahead mr expert.

[Carl Butters]

No it isn't possible. Not even Hubble has that kind of resolution.

If it were possible then there would be no moon conspiracy theories because it would be provable one way or another.

then it seems they better get to work

[Waspie_Dwarf]

then it seems they better get to work

Unlikely. A telescope on earth is limited in what it can observe because of the earth's atmosphere. That means photographing the site from space, which will not convince the conspiracy nuts because they will just say that the pictures are fake and we all go round in a big circle.

[Carl Butters]

Unlikely. A telescope on earth is limited in what it can observe because of the earth's atmosphere. That means photographing the site from space, which will not convince the conspiracy nuts because they will just say that the pictures are fake and we all go round in a big circle.

lol then they better get to work

[ImOne]

The picture clearly shows the space suit of the alien consultant that helped us create an accurate moonscape for the hoaxed video and pictures.

[boggle]

The picture clearly shows the space suit of the alien consultant that helped us create an accurate moonscape for the hoaxed video and pictures.

the accurate moonscape? you can recreate an accurate moonscape easily if you want to make blatant mistakes like nasa's irrefutable evidence.

[boggle]

Unlikely. A telescope on earth is limited in what it can observe because of the earth's atmosphere. That means photographing the site from space, which will not convince the conspiracy nuts because they will just say that the pictures are fake and we all go round in a big circle.

im still waiting for irrefutable evidence that the moon landing cannot be possible to hoax. Your telescope with computer chip is the only piece that you keep stressing on and ignoring the rest since the evidence being looked at is offical footage and photos released by nasa. You are poking at an impossibility for hubble to show res rates yet you cant get it through your head that the footage being shown comes from nasa. People are making their remarks based on the footage and photos released to the general public from nasa. sheesh.

Edited May 24, 2006 by boggle

[Lilly]

....You are poking at an impossibility for hubble to show res rates yet you cant get it through your head that the footage being shown comes from nasa. People are making their remarks based on the footage and photos released to the general public from nasa. sheesh.

The footage from NASA you speak of, that shows close ups images of the Apollo landing sites, won't be available until the Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter is launched in 2008. Waspie_Dwarf explained this here (I've emboldened the parts to focus upon):

...There is no telescope yet built that has the angular resolution to image an object a few feet across a quater of a million miles away.

The best earth observation satellites could probably resolve such objects on earth (spy satellites certainly could) but they orbit just a few hundred miles up. They could not do it from 250,000 miles away.

When the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is launched in 2008 it should have the ability to observe the landing sites. Of course as it is a NASA mission the conspiracy nuts will not be silenced even by this.

Now, all this really isn't "rocket science". However, I have a nagging feeling that even when this is provided it won't be *proof* enough for some.

BTW, boggle, what is this other evidence we are ignoring..."ignoring the rest since the evidence being looked at is offical footage and photos released by nasa"? I'd like to see this other evidence.

[boggle]

The footage from NASA you speak of, that shows close ups images of the Apollo landing sites, won't be available until the Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter is launched in 2008. Waspie_Dwarf explained this here (I've emboldened the parts to focus upon):

Now, all this really isn't "rocket science". However, I have a nagging feeling that even when this is provided it won't be *proof* enough for some.

BTW, boggle, what is this other evidence we are ignoring..."ignoring the rest since the evidence being looked at is offical footage and photos released by nasa"? I'd like to see this other evidence.

im referring to the same person looking at the evidence released is the same one that helped design the apollo's rockets, the same evidence that the one who designed the cameras that were attached to each astronaut, are you wanting to know that evidence?

Edited May 24, 2006 by boggle

[Lilly]

im referring to the same person looking at the evidence is the same one that helped design the apollo's rockets, the same evidence that the one who designed the cameras that were attached to each astronaut, are you wanting to know that evidence?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, regarding the engineers who designed for the Apollo missions. Are you saying that they are the people responsible for perpetrating the hoax? Frankly, that works out to be a very, very large group of people... all engaged in hoaxing (?). Also, the *evidence* that guys like Bart Sibrel present as supporting the moon hoax idea just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Have you read the links to the Bad Astronomy and Moonbase Clavius sites?

[boggle]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, regarding the engineers who designed for the Apollo missions. Are you saying that they are the people responsible for perpetrating the hoax? Frankly, that works out to be a very, very large group of people... all engaged in hoaxing (?). Also, the *evidence* that guys like Bart Sibrel present as supporting the moon hoax idea just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Have you read the links to the Bad Astronomy and Moonbase Clavius sites?

It dont matter to me how big of a group it might be, there are a few blatant mistakes that left an impression to the same people who contributed into the project, they are remarking on footage--freeze frames, still photos straight from nasa . imo i could care less if they faked it or not but im more inclined to believe their remarks vs. nasa's spokesmans' evasion tactics. Whether its possible for a telescope to capture footage hundreds of thousands of miles away is not the point, the point is that those people are questioning the footage released by nasa, it's plain and simple.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

there are a few blatant mistakes that left an impression to the same people who contributed into the project, they are remarking on footage--freeze frames, still photos straight from nasa.

Name one person, who was actuallly involved in project Apollo, that doubts the authenticity of the photographs. The vast majority of the "evidence" presented against the photographs is based on such a poor understanding of basic photography (the "oh look you can't see any stars" sort of ignorance) that I doubt most of these hoax believers could distinguish a Hassleblad from a banjo.

[boggle]

Name one person, who was actuallly involved in project Apollo, that doubts the authenticity of the photographs. The vast majority of the "evidence" presented against the photographs is based on such a poor understanding of basic photography (the "oh look you can't see any stars" sort of ignorance) that I doubt most of these hoax believers could distinguish a Hassleblad from a banjo.

you would rather assume that all of those that have can obviously see discrepencies as being uninformed but that is only based from your own bias.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

you would rather assume that all of those that have can obviously see discrepencies as being uninformed but that is only based from your own bias.

It's not based on bias but on an ability to read books on basic photography. Try it one day tou might learn something. I have been using a camera since I was a child. I'm not a great photographer but I am an OK one. I understand apperture and shutter speed settings. Most of the people claiming the pictures are fake clearly don't.

[boggle]

It's not based on bias but on an ability to read books on basic photography. Try it one day tou might learn something. I have been using a camera since I was a child. I'm not a great photographer but I am an OK one. I understand apperture and shutter speed settings. Most of the people claiming the pictures are fake clearly don't.

who said anything about claiming the photos being fake? the photos indicate a true studio setting LOL pay attention to detail, you still dont get it yet. Nobody has ever stated the photos being fake and after all this time, that is what you conclude? clearly you havent read anything nor listened to what they had to say.

Edited May 24, 2006 by boggle

[Waspie_Dwarf]

i would agree with that theory since all of the pictures submitted by nasa are all undeniably questionable.

The fact of the matter is that the idiots back then who didnt take into consideration the blatant mistakes made while portraying a fake as being valid.

Your words boggle.

[boggle]

Your words boggle.

the photos being questionable can mean three things:

1. the landing on the moon was in a studio

2. the landing on the moon was on the moon

3. the photos was taken on the moon but the photo itself was doctored

are you boggling now? or are you still unable to fathom questionable? your prior post is another attempt to spout off uncontrollably.

Edited May 24, 2006 by boggle

[xstortionist]

did anyone notice this alien take a leak behind that boulder?

[Lilly]

are you boggling now? or are you still unable to fathom questionable? your prior post is another attempt to spout off uncontrollably.

Here's some friendly advice for you, boggle; Go to the main forums index, Scroll down to the Science section, Take a look at the names of the forum leaders under Science and Technology and Space and Astronomy.

Also, rudeness never serves to help support one's position.

[boggle]

Here's some friendly advice for you, boggle; Go to the main forums index, Scroll down to the Science section, Take a look at the names of the forum leaders under Science and Technology and Space and Astronomy.

Also, rudeness never serves to help support one's position.

will i find reincarnations of albert einstein, velikovsky, and goddard? heheh jk

[Waspie_Dwarf]

who said anything about claiming the photos being fake? the photos indicate a true studio setting LOL pay attention to detail, you still dont get it yet. Nobody has ever stated the photos being fake and after all this time, that is what you conclude? clearly you havent read anything nor listened to what they had to say.

the photos being questionable can mean three things:

1. the landing on the moon was in a studio

2. the landing on the moon was on the moon

3. the photos was taken on the moon but the photo itself was doctored

are you boggling now? or are you still unable to fathom questionable? your prior post is another attempt to spout off uncontrollably.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Fake adj. not genuine

Also from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Questionable adj. 1 open to doubt. 2likely to be dishonest or morally wrong

NASA claims these to be photographs taken on the moon so:

If case 1 is true, ie the landing was in a studio, the photographs would be fake.

If case 3 is true, is photo was doctored, then the photo would be fake.

If case 2 is true, the photos would be genuine, but as they would be exactly what NASA claim them to be in what way could they be questionable?

I rather hope that English is not your first language.

Edited May 24, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf

[boggle]

NASA claims these to be photographs taken on the moon so:

If case 1 is true, ie the landing was in a studio, the photographs would be fake.

If case 3 is true, is photo was doctored, then the photo would be fake.

If case 2 is true, the photos would be genuine, but as they would be exactly what NASA claim them to be in what way could they be questionable?

I rather hope that English is not your first language.

if the case was 1 the photos does not necessarily mean fake just the general principle that being on the moon being authentic is fake. The concept is called inventing reality which i guess you are not familiar with.

Edited May 24, 2006 by boggle

[Waspie_Dwarf]

if the case was 1 the photos does not necessarily mean fake just the general principle that being on the moon being authentic is fake. The concept is called inventing reality which i guess you are not familiar with.

I really do not want to get bogged down in the semantics of the English language, but if the photographs are not what they claim to be then they are not genuine and therefore, by definition, fake.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Genuine adj. 1 truly what it is said to be; authentic 2 honest