Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Luner-Landings - What do you think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #210620 is a reply to message #210619] |
Mon, 31 July 2006 10:44   |
 |
IronWarrior
Messages: 2460
Registered: November 2004
Location: England UK
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 12:31 |
| help-linux wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 05:16 |
untill i get proven otherwise, i don't belive.
|
That's the problem, we have given you proof, you just don't WANT to believe it, therefore you are not even considering it as proof.
|
I think the problem lies deeper this then, its not about weather we can prove it to him, its just that hes just missing commen sense that most people have.
When I was younger then you, I could understand that we landed on the moon and so on.. why is it so hard to believe.
Can I ask you sometehing please, do you believe in god`?
[Updated on: Mon, 31 July 2006 10:46] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #210621 is a reply to message #210333] |
Mon, 31 July 2006 10:45 |
 |
Oblivion165
Messages: 3468
Registered: June 2003
Location: Hendersonville, North Car...
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
The lunar landing area has been "lost", they could never show proof of the landing through a telescope. I dont belive for many reasons, not because of lighting or images over camera markers. Not even because they can't show proof on the actual moon.
Also, no the fox special is not what swayed me.
WOL: Ob165ion Skype: Oblivion165 Yahoo Instant Messenger: CaptainJohn165
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #210632 is a reply to message #210622] |
Mon, 31 July 2006 11:58 |
|
IronWarrior
Messages: 2460
Registered: November 2004
Location: England UK
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 12:50 |
| IWarriors wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 13:44 |
Can I ask you sometehing please, do you believe in god`?
|
Are you asking warranto that? Because if you are... he's Roman Catholic, and if he doesn't believe in God... he's one messed up Catholic.
|
No no, asking Linux, but anyone can reply aslong they beleive in god but not the moon landings. .
[Updated on: Mon, 31 July 2006 11:59] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #210636 is a reply to message #210333] |
Mon, 31 July 2006 12:07 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
The moon landing site is too small to be seen with a telescope.
| THE LINK I FUCKING POSTED |
Why don't we just point Hubble or some other big telescope at the moon to show the moon landing sites? Wouldn't that settle the argument once and for all?
If only it was that easy! The biggest problem with this is that they simply are not powerful enough. The lunar landers are very,very,very small in astronomical terms and they're pretty far away as well. There isn't a telescope in existence that could take a picture of one.
There are lots of mathematics we could show to demonstrate this, but's it's very complicated and we don't fully understand it anyway. But here's our abridged dumbed-down version.
Size of Lunar Module. Let's be really generous and say 10m square.
Distance between Hubble and Moon. About 350, 000km.
This works out as an visual angle of (10m)/(3.5 x 10^8m) * (180/PI) = 1.6 x 10^-6 degrees = 6 milliarcseconds.
The WFPC2 'telescope' on Hubble has the following resolution: 800x800 pixels of a 35 arcseconds field of view with a pixel scale of 46 milliarcseconds. Actually resolution in practice is a little below this.
So what does this all mean? Well, roughly speaking, it means that the lunar lander would have to be 15 times larger before it would even cause a dot on a Hubble picture.
|
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #210678 is a reply to message #210333] |
Mon, 31 July 2006 14:28 |
mision08
Messages: 525
Registered: May 2005
Location: Cattle Drive, Dallas to F...
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Wow, first the sun does not revolve a damn thing from our prospective. Maybe it revolves some extremely large and distant mass but it is irrelevant to us. If the moon revolves the earth and the earth revolves the sun, seems like there would be a window of opportunity to land without radiation killing the astronauts. Or we would be dead here on earth. If the Lunar landing was to raise morale of the US population, what was the agenda for the Cosmonauts?
Oh, and I like the map. It's fun, but it's important to hit the ground running. Take out the WF or strip with an infantry rush. At least I think that's Lunar Landing.
True Greatness, and just a good human
The best finish, closest finish in the 50 year history of Winston Cup
Freddy Krueger music video
Harvester Of Sorrow, language of the mad
Johnny Cash & Bob Dylan A Thousand Miles Behind
Your own personal Jesus, someone to hear your prayers
Kyle's mom is a bitch
Johnny Cash Live @ San Quentin
Don't Y'all Think This Outlaw Bit's Done Got Out Of Hand?
[Updated on: Mon, 31 July 2006 14:32] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #210697 is a reply to message #210690] |
Mon, 31 July 2006 15:56 |
 |
Scythar
Messages: 580
Registered: February 2003
Location: Finland
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Oblivion165 wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 18:41 |
I would think a site of such historic meaning would be found, if not by NASA, then by an amateur.
They can read pack of cigarettes, read the years off of discarded pennies and find the titanic under 12,500 feet of water with 1985 technology but they cant find a craft on the moon at the point at which was highly calculated and spent months and months picking out.
A primitive computer flew from the earth to the moon and found the exact spot set in its memory, but we can even begin to find said location.
Kinda seems far and fetched to me.
|
It's not about finding it, we know it's location very precicely. It's just that we can't see there from earth.
Discovery already flew in -84 and now we just launched it successfully again in 2006. What's your point?
There's a hole in the sky through which things can fly.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #210703 is a reply to message #210333] |
Mon, 31 July 2006 16:09 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
The satellites that can see that closely are not orbiting around the moon, they are orbiting around the Earth. They are too far from the moon to get pictures at the resolution required to see the landing site.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #210709 is a reply to message #210703] |
Mon, 31 July 2006 16:19 |
|
Oblivion165
Messages: 3468
Registered: June 2003
Location: Hendersonville, North Car...
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 19:09 |
The satellites that can see that closely are not orbiting around the moon, they are orbiting around the Earth. They are too far from the moon to get pictures at the resolution required to see the landing site.
|
Yes im aware, however there is equipment that could be used not just orbiting satellites.
WOL: Ob165ion Skype: Oblivion165 Yahoo Instant Messenger: CaptainJohn165
|
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #210711 is a reply to message #210333] |
Mon, 31 July 2006 16:20 |
 |
pirkel123
Messages: 39
Registered: July 2004
Location: Augusta, Georgia
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
You Naysayers are insulting these men.
# Neil Armstrong - Apollo 11 - July, 1969
# Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin - Apollo 11 - July, 1969
# Charles "Pete" Conrad - Apollo 12 - November, 1969 (may have been scheduled to land again on Apollo 20)[2]
# Alan Bean - Apollo 12 - November, 1969
# Alan Shepard - Apollo 14 - February, 1971
# Edgar Mitchell - Apollo 14 - February, 1971
# David Scott - Apollo 15 - July, 1971
# James Irwin - Apollo 15 - July, 1971
# John Young - Apollo 16 - April, 1972 (also on Apollo 10, without landing)
# Charles Duke - Apollo 16 - April, 1972
# Eugene Cernan - Apollo 17 - December, 1972 (also on Apollo 10, without landing)
# Harrison Schmitt - Apollo 17 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lunar_astronauts
|
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #210713 is a reply to message #210697] |
Mon, 31 July 2006 16:23 |
|
Oblivion165
Messages: 3468
Registered: June 2003
Location: Hendersonville, North Car...
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Scythar wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 18:56 |
| Oblivion165 wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 18:41 |
I would think a site of such historic meaning would be found, if not by NASA, then by an amateur.
They can read pack of cigarettes, read the years off of discarded pennies and find the titanic under 12,500 feet of water with 1985 technology but they cant find a craft on the moon at the point at which was highly calculated and spent months and months picking out.
A primitive computer flew from the earth to the moon and found the exact spot set in its memory, but we can even begin to find said location.
Kinda seems far and fetched to me.
|
It's not about finding it, we know it's location very precicely. It's just that we can't see there from earth.
We have the technology, just excuses not to.
Discovery already flew in -84 and now we just launched it successfully again in 2006. What's your point?
|
The point is that in 85 they could find the titanic with that level of technology.
WOL: Ob165ion Skype: Oblivion165 Yahoo Instant Messenger: CaptainJohn165
|
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #210717 is a reply to message #210709] |
Mon, 31 July 2006 16:26 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| Oblivion165 wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 16:19 |
Yes im aware, however there is equipment that could be used not just orbiting satellites.
|
No. There isn't. Even the hubble telescope doesn't have the resolution to do it.
The wavelength of visible light is around 550x10^-9m (i.e. very very small).
The diameter of Hubble's mirror is 2.4m.
Highest ever physically possible resolution = 1.4 x 550 x 10^-9 /2.4 m = 3.2 x 10^-7 radians
At a distance of 350,000km this works out as about 124 metres. This is roughly the size of a football field.
Even if the Hubble telescope had the highest possible resolution, it still couldn't see the landing site from Earth!
Keep your eye on the SELENE project, however. It's a Japanese project, part of which is taking close pictures of the moon's surface at a resolution where we CAN see the landing site in order to map the entire moon.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #210732 is a reply to message #210333] |
Mon, 31 July 2006 17:11 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/SELENE.htm |
Unfortunately it won't put an end to the hoax theories, that we can guarantee. Here's what the theories will be couple of years time. Yes, they're that predictable.
* The Japanese have been paid off by NASA to fake their photos. Well, we all know they're shifty foreigners with no morals, don't we? They'll do anything for the mighty dollar.
* NASA sneaked faked landers up there during the last five years in preparation for the Japanese photos. Don't bother asking about where the money came from to do this, or how they managed it all in total secrecy.
* What we can see aren't the Apollo sites, but alien bases that NASA are pretending are theirs. And if you join up all the dots on the photos it spells out a Masonic chant in ancient Greek.
|
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #211214 is a reply to message #210333] |
Thu, 03 August 2006 19:26 |
Kanezor
Messages: 855
Registered: February 2005
Location: Sugar Land, TX, USA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| help-linux wrote on Sun, 30 July 2006 20:29 |
| Dogg wrote on Sat, 29 July 2006 20:53 |
| help-linux wrote on Sat, 29 July 2006 14:12 |
i don't want this to turn into a argument, just a discusstion.
i dont think anybody has landed on the moon, due to the fact the suns radiation would kill them. there are many more facters.
What do you think?
|
Wouldn't the radiation kill the space walkers, shuttle riders or Space Station orbiters in the last 47 years? Or do they wear ozone generators in their suits and craft? For that matter, where there are holes in the Ozone already, wouldn't there be a circle of death where those holes hit the surface!?!?
|
NO, we are protected from radiation by the earth magnetic field.
spacewalkers are protected by that.
The ozone layer does not protect us from radiation, it protects us from ultraviolet rays? i am not certain.
anyway a contry didn't know about the hoax and though it was posiible, so on their spacecraft the put a 6 feet lead sheet around it. to protect it from radiation, well you could imagine what happend on take off.
|
Maybe my question has already been answered, but... what country are you referring to? And also, my guess is that unless they're using some really awesome rockets, a 6-foot lead sheet around it would most likely cause the rocket to fail to lift off, unless it was assembled in pieces in orbit.
And I'll also point out that we're not entirely protected from radiation by the magnetic field; we're also protected from radiation via radio waves created by lightning. There was a show on the Discovery channel recently (past 2-3 weeks) regarding that, though a brief google search yielded limited results. Apparently, there's an empty radiation belt around Earth that the military had detonated a nuclear bomb in, filled it with radiation, and then the radiation had been cleared within a short time, and that was all linked to radio whitenoise caused by lightning strikes.
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #211311 is a reply to message #210333] |
Fri, 04 August 2006 09:18 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Careful there.
Why would they lie?
Two large reasons.
It had been promised by the President that they would be on the moon before the decade was up. (First moon landing July 20, 1969. 6 months shy of missing the deadline)
The reason for the promise came because the Russians (ie. Communists) put the first man in space.
Conclusion, they were not going to be able to put a man on the moon by the deadline proposed by the President, and if Capitalism were to fail in this, it would give Communism a large boost.
Now, before people start accusing me of something, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS. But, to answer the question of "why?", I give this answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Luner-Landings - What do you think. [message #211970 is a reply to message #210333] |
Sat, 05 August 2006 23:16 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Funny; is anyone else's head bursting with myriads of parallels between just about EVERYTHING said in this thread and all the anti/pro-God arguments given in that religion thread?
What's REALLY funny is that most of the people who were attempting to refute the existence of God in that thread are now trying to prove the Apollo moon landings with the same type of arguments we Christians used to DEFEND God (and, of course, vice versa).
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Sat, 05 August 2006 23:17] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Nov 01 22:35:53 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01440 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
