Moon landings

[pap]

A dune buggy, going a lot faster than the lunar rover.

 

[video=youtube_share;YLmPJ7nTeTw]

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Hilarious

 

Have you ever even been to a beach? Have you ever seen a beech buggy drive over "dry beech sand" - the results are quite spectacular. Oh and please explain on which of Planet Earths many beeches the sand refuses to conform to the known laws of physics?

 

And it s not sand but dust of course ... apart from that a good post.

Edited 18 December, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[pap]

Hilarious

 

Have you ever even been to a beach? Have you ever seen a beech buggy drive over "dry beech sand" - the results are quite spectacular. Oh and please explain on which of Planet Earths many beeches the sand refuses to conform to the known laws of physics?

 

And it s not sand but dust of course ... apart from that a good post.

 

I've just posted a vid.

 

Does that help?

[pap]

Hilarious

 

Have you ever even been to a beach? Have you ever seen a beech buggy drive over "dry beech sand" - the results are quite spectacular. Oh and please explain on which of Planet Earths many beeches the sand refuses to conform to the known laws of physics?

 

And it s not sand but dust of course ... apart from that a good post.

 

Oh, and once again, your entire proof based is on the assumption that your video shows dust. You can't possibly know this. You even engaged your creative side to assist me, positing fine-grained uranium as the only possible solution.

 

Nah. Sand.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Famous NASA image of Astronault's footprint in Moondust:

 

 

Note moondust is clearly a very much finer substance than any "dry beech sand" I'm familiar with. Also please note this characteristic powder-like dust is known to cover all the Apollo sites. The dust depicted would seem to conform with all available scientific descriptions of moondust in the record.

 

Pap seems unsure of his argument, but apparently he would now have you believe that the LRV is moving (at speed) over either some (unidentified) superdense material, or alternatively his 'dry beech sand' - here on Earth remember. He has no explanation as why the dust refuses to form a cloud, or be blow away on the Nevada desert wind. The elegant manner the moondust falls in a perfect parabolic arc behind the rover is also unexplained.

 

Other good questions include, how are his "wires" that are supposedly attached to the astronauts (in order to simulate low gravity) kept in position as their drive the LRV around?

[The Kraken]

That looks like a fake footprint to me. Like a baby's shoe dipped into some grey flour.

 

[pap]

Famous NASA image of Astronault's footprint in Moondust:

 

 

Note moondust is clearly a very much finer substance than any "dry beech sand" I'm familiar with. Also please note this characteristic powder-like dust is known to cover all the Apollo sites. The dust depicted would seem to conform with all available scientific descriptions of moondust in the record.

 

Pap seems unsure of his argument, but apparently he would now have you believe that the LRV is moving (at speed) over either some (unidentified) superdense material, or alternatively his 'dry beech sand' - here on Earth remember. He has no explanation as why the dust refuses to form a cloud, or be blow away on the Nevada desert wind. The elegant manner the moondust falls in a perfect parabolic arc behind the rover is also unexplained.

 

Other good questions include, how are his "wires" that are supposedly attached to the astronauts (in order to simulate low gravity) kept in position as their drive the LRV around?

 

Have you got a video that shows the lunar rover moving about with this pristine footprint in shot?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

That would be differcult as the photo comes from Apollo 11 - which did not come equipped with a LRV!

[pap]

That would be differcult as the photo comes from Apollo 11 - which did not come equipped with a LRV!

 

Then you've proved nothing except you have a video of a lunar rover, and a photo of a footprint. One doesn't imply the other.

 

In fact, all your evidence seems to be of the "Of course my leprechaun exists. You can ask my pixie if you don't believe me!" variety.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

But don't you remember - you accepted that moondust was this fine powdery substance because the early Surveyor 3 probe image - a machine you are on the record as accepting - showed exactly the same composition too.

[pap]

But don't you remember - you accepted that moondust was this fine powdery substance because the early Surveyor 3 probe image - a machine you are on the record as accepting - showed exactly the same composition too.

 

I don't see how this adds to your point. In cinema, filmmakers often composite different components together to form a coherent scene. In the case of the two events we are now referencing, they are years apart.

 

You are trying to make the case that because we see dust from Surveyor 1, and dust from the footprint, that the lunar rover must be on the moon because of the way the dust behaves.

 

You don't know it's dust, you're taking a leap of faith, and are wilfully excluding other possibilities as a result of that faith.

 

On feasibility at least; you're nailed, mucker. You have unfailingly tried to convince me that a number of things just aren't possible, and you've been proven wrong each and every time, retreating into specificity, outlandish proof-finding business trips or more imagery from NASA.

 

And come on. Are you really able to assert with total confidence that one set of dust is the same as another? Are you Batman?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Look closer at the LRV film - the moondust depicted is entirely consistent with both the Surveyor 3 and Apollo 11 stills. Now if you want to claim some sort of deception is evident here then it's up to you to prove EXACTLY how this incredible effect was achieved.

 

But the truth is you have no viable explanation that explains the behavior of the moondust - this truth should be quite clear now to everyone reading this.

[pap]

Look closer at the LRV film - the moondust depicted is entirely consistent with both the Surveyor 3 and Apollo 11 stills. Now if you want to claim some sort of deception is evident here then it's up to you to prove EXACTLY how this incredible effect was achieved.

 

But the truth is you have no viable explanation that explains the behavior of the moondust - this truth should be quite clear now to everyone reading this.

 

Qualify "consistent". How are you measuring that?

[ottery st mary]

Famous NASA image of Astronault's footprint in Moondust:

 

 

Note moondust is clearly a very much finer substance than any "dry beech sand" I'm familiar with. Also please note this characteristic powder-like dust is known to cover all the Apollo sites. The dust depicted would seem to conform with all available scientific descriptions of moondust in the record.

 

Pap seems unsure of his argument, but apparently he would now have you believe that the LRV is moving (at speed) over either some (unidentified) superdense material, or alternatively his 'dry beech sand' - here on Earth remember. He has no explanation as why the dust refuses to form a cloud, or be blow away on the Nevada desert wind. The elegant manner the moondust falls in a perfect parabolic arc behind the rover is also unexplained.

 

Other good questions include, how are his "wires" that are supposedly attached to the astronauts (in order to simulate low gravity) kept in position as their drive the LRV around?

 

This footprint is not kosher:p

 

Scenes of Crime based on the moon have asked their colleagues in Hollywood and Nevada to have a quick glance at this

 

Men on the moon and footprints:)...You are having a LARF:smug:

[ottery st mary]

Maybe those pesky conspiracy theorists...PLANTED ..this photograph exhibit:rolleyes:

 

Just to fool a fool like me.

[Halo Stickman]

I not aware of one established person from the scientific community that is a conspiracist - they mostly seem to be journos and fantascists like Jarrah White - so look at the credentials for these people?

 

Since the Enlightenment, many scientists have positioned themselves as High Priestess-like arbiters of eternal truths. Objectivity, not subjectivity, is their mantra; or, at least, this is the illusion. In reality, just like the rest of us, all scientists are subjected to limitations of personality, politics, peer-group pressures, fashion and financial restraints.

 

Whisper it quietly; there are physicists, chemists and biologists whose lifetime study has led them to the same, seemingly, paradoxical conclusion: the existence of God. For them to publicly admit this, however, is as unlikely as it would be for them to express doubts as to the authenticity of the lunar landings: to do so would almost certainly mean instantaneous lost of both credibility and funding.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Qualify "consistent". How are you measuring that?

 

consistent [kənˈsɪstənt]

adj

 

1. showing consistency; not self-contradictory.

2. in agreement or harmony; accordant

[pap]

consistent [kənˈsɪstənt]

adj

 

1. showing consistency; not self-contradictory.

2. in agreement or harmony; accordant

 

 

I suspect your definition of consistent is one or more of the following:-

 

1) NASA data agreeing with itself.

2) It's grey

3) It's granular

 

That about cover it?

[a1ex2001]

To some up this thread:

 

Person1 'It's all fake the biggest conspiracy in history'

Person2 'No it's not it's all real'

Person1 'I have no conclusive evidence but don't believe you and I have the backing of some internet nut jobs'

Person2 'I have no conclusive evidence but don't believe you but I have the backing of huge numbers of experts and the sworn testimony of the men who went'

 

Rinse and repeat endlessly.

 

Personally I believe they happened the conspiracy theory is just too far fetched for me and I believe the weight of evidence is in favour. I could obviously be convinced other wise if some does a 'google earth' of the moon and there is no evidence then i'm sold but lets be honest if the Chinese or Russian governments really thought it didn't happen there would be a dozen probes on their way right now to prove it as the propoganda coup would be imense.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I suspect your definition of consistent is one or more of the following:-

 

1) NASA data agreeing with itself.

2) It's grey

3) It's granular

 

 

I suspect that even had the NASA Astronaut filming the LRV first took a pointless close-up shot of the moondust beneath his feet, then pulled a micrometer out out his pocket and demonstrated on camera that they were indeed standing upon fine powdery dust, oh and only then started to film the action (without any edits naturally) you'd still be on here spouting the same nonsensical claptrap anyway.

 

Of course in reality (foolishly) he didn't realize that 40 years after he shot one of the most remarkable films in all Human history - a film that was demonstrably made in extra-terrestrial conditions - that a bunch of adolescent fruitcakes would dare to suggest he was a liar and a fraud.

 

But as we are going around in circles, why don't you prove to me that millions of people live in Japan and we can waste the weekend arguing about that.

[pap]

Ha! Nice summary of the thread!

 

The Russians and Chinese are superficially good shouts. However, the Russians weren't able to track Apollo there and back. Additionally, NASA and the Russians were working together by the mid-1970s. Then think on the composition of both space agencies. Both the US and Russia nicked their rocket expertise from Nazi Germany. These boys on competing sides of the Iron Curtain were old colleagues back in the Fatherland. They had every reason to validate the result and not enough information to prove it. Jarrah White's site lists other reasons.

 

China is an interesting case. Their space program is still in the early stages, but they're developing independent capability and know-how. Say they do get conclusive proof when they resolve the lunar surface to sufficient detail. What do they do? Broadly, they can either disclose or use it as leverage. The latter is a possibility that no-one seems to consider, yet happens more often than you'd think.

[pap]

I suspect that even had the NASA Astronaut filming the LRV first took a pointless close-up shot of the moondust beneath his feet, then pulled a micrometer out out his pocket and demonstrated on camera that they were indeed standing upon fine powdery dust, oh and only then started to film the action (without any edits naturally) you'd still be on here spouting the same nonsensical claptrap anyway.

 

Of course in reality (foolishly) he didn't realize that 40 years after he shot one of the most remarkable films in all Human history - a film that was demonstrably made in extra-terrestrial conditions - that a bunch of adolescent fruitcakes would dare to suggest he was a liar and a fraud.

 

But as we are going around in circles, why don't you prove to me that millions of people live in Japan and we can waste the weekend arguing about that.

 

The sad thing is you had this virtually won on Sunday. I was ready to bow out. But nah, you had blood in your nostrils, couldn't resist further mockery and this is the result.

 

I'm still giggling over your reverse invite, where people were invited NOT to call me a horse's ass. It's brilliant, although if you plan to rock that particular playground practice in future, can I suggest a slight username change to Chapel End Childie?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Ha! Nice summary of the thread!

 

The Russians and Chinese are superficially good shouts. However, the Russians weren't able to track Apollo there and back. Additionally, NASA and the Russians were working together by the mid-1970s. Then think on the composition of both space agencies. Both the US and Russia nicked their rocket expertise from Nazi Germany. These boys on competing sides of the Iron Curtain were old colleagues back in the Fatherland. They had every reason to validate the result and not enough information to prove it. Jarrah White's site lists other reasons.

 

China is an interesting case. Their space program is still in the early stages, but they're developing independent capability and know-how. Say they do get conclusive proof when they resolve the lunar surface to sufficient detail. What do they do? Broadly, they can either disclose or use it as leverage. The latter is a possibility that no-one seems to consider, yet happens more often than you'd think.

 

Oh his one's a absolute classic!

 

I think I'll have printed and framed, so that the next time I start to think that there might be intelligent life in the Universe I need only glance at the wall and know it's a myth.

[ottery st mary]

Hope you guys will join me on the first day trip....

 

The Russians and Chinese want to come along too.....Will bring their own flags...and foot prints.

 

The USA not interested as they are away on Mars that weekend.

 

 

Will try to arrange this when Saints are away......Suggest we take The ML flag.

 

 

You two big boyzz Charlie and Pap.......Leave your handbags at home... You'VE BEEN WARNED...

[pap]

Oh his one's a absolute classic!

 

I think I'll have printed and framed, so that the next time I start to think that there might be intelligent life in the Universe I need only glance at the wall and know it's a myth.

 

Or alternatively, a mirror.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Nah the Mirror is more your level than mine.

 

Although I suspect the Sunday Sport would be more in your line.

[pap]

Nah the Mirror is more level than mine.

 

Although I suspect the Sunday Sport would be more in your line.

 

More level than your what?

 

You're not even trying anymore. First casualty is the edit, I suppose.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Are you editing my posts now - how strange.

[pap]

Hope you guys will join me on the first day trip....

 

The Russians and Chinese want to come along too.....Will bring their own flags...and foot prints.

 

The USA not interested as they are away on Mars that weekend.

 

 

Will try to arrange this when Saints are away......Suggest we take The ML flag.

 

 

You two big boyzz Charlie and Pap.......Leave your handbags at home... You'VE BEEN WARNED...

 

Don't book a space for Charlie.

 

He'll moan about the spacecraft not being as good as the ones in the old days, and besides, he's happy enough with a couple of snaps, a bit of video and the testimony of 12 men, who either kick off or clam up when asked difficult questions.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Don't book a space for Charlie.

 

He'll moan about the spacecraft not being as good as the ones in the old days, and besides, he's happy enough with a couple of snaps, a bit of video and the testimony of 12 men, who either kick off or clam up when asked difficult questions.

 

As we are now up to about 500 outstanding awkward questions you have 'forgotten' to answer (how careless) I think you'd be well advised to get to work on that. Still can't see all that many forum members jumping to your defence by the way.

 

I wonder why?

[The Kraken]

Don't book a space for Charlie.

 

He'll moan about the spacecraft not being as good as the ones in the old days, and besides, he's happy enough with a couple of snaps, a bit of video and the testimony of 12 men, who either kick off or clam up when asked difficult questions.

 

How on earth are you taking the conspiracy angle yet still coming off better from this argument?!!

 

:lol:

[ottery st mary]

I hope you two scientists have allowed for there being more than one moon:rolleyes:....Dozens in Smoke alone.........OK Cloud Dust;)

 

The Moon..........I have frequented many times is.. under water and situated in Leicester Square.

 

The barmaid has stated there have been NO landings ( on her anyway) and no USA flags or foot prints planted.....

 

Maybe we ' Moonies ' could all meet in there one day before a Saints game...

[pap]

As we are now up to about 500 outstanding awkward questions you have 'forgotten' to answer (how careless) I think you'd be well advised to get to work on that. Still can't see all that many forum members jumping to your defence by the way.

 

I wonder why?

 

Ah, we're here, are we?

 

Superb stuff.

 

First, this entire thread is about the discussion of a conspiracy theory. Either bravely, or stupidly, I'm batting for the pro-hoax side of the pitch. This is not the first time I've argued for a conspiracy theory on SaintsWeb, or in a contemporary (i.e. not conspiracy-related ) forum. I knew I wasn't going to get a great deal of support; nor do I want it. You argue as if popular mandate, or lack thereof in this case, is some kind of validation for your point. In reality, it is a deeply provocative subject, which is exactly why I picked it.

 

Then, look at the abuse some bunged my way. Don't get me wrong; I'm not having a blub, but some may not be as indifferent to that kind of response. They may look at the repeated insults and think "why bother"? You've created a toxic environment for debate.

[pap]

How on earth are you taking the conspiracy angle yet still coming off better from this argument?!!

 

:lol:

 

No mate. I think you'll find that because you haven't explicitly come on here and said I'm not a horse's ass, I am one.

[a1ex2001]

Ah, we're here, are we?

 

Superb stuff.

 

First, this entire thread is about the discussion of a conspiracy theory. Either bravely, or stupidly, I'm batting for the pro-hoax side of the pitch. This is not the first time I've argued for a conspiracy theory on SaintsWeb, or in a contemporary (i.e. not conspiracy-related ) forum. I knew I wasn't going to get a great deal of support; nor do I want it. You argue as if popular mandate, or lack thereof in this case, is some kind of validation for your point. In reality, it is a deeply provocative subject, which is exactly why I picked it.

 

Then, look at the abuse some bunged my way. Don't get me wrong; I'm not having a blub, but some may not be as indifferent to that kind of response. They may look at the repeated insults and think "why bother"? You've created a toxic environment for debate.

 

The trouble is he has a point, like all good conspiracy theorists you gloss over the awkward questions or the points that go against your theory and instead throw up something else each time obsessing over particular details that are hard to prove either way and ignoring the glaring holes in most arguments. The interent is full of brilliant debunkings by proper scientists of all the major moon landing conspiracy theories if you care to read them what I fail to understand is how this thread got locked into and endless loop about the type of dust and the irrelevant reflectors.

[Whitey Grandad]

This thread has diverted away from serious scientific argument and degenerated into name-calling.There's only a couple of days left until the world comes to and end and we still haven't analysed and debunked more than a couple of the arguments. I have limited internet access and I am on holiday so please, what's next?

[trousers]

All we need is one decent hi-res modern day photograph of the landing site. Just one. Not too much to ask in the year 2012 is it?

[The Kraken]

All we need is one decent hi-res modern day photograph of the landing site. Just one. Not too much to ask in the year 2012 is it?

 

That that probe had been orbitting the moon and taking pictures for a year was just about to send them back before it crashed into a lunar mountain.

 

Such rotten luck.

[saint si]

That that probe had been orbitting the moon and taking pictures for a year was just about to send them back before it crashed into a lunar mountain.

 

Such rotten luck.

 

Ah yes, that orbiter, that had been doing reconaissance of the lunar surface... damn shame.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19050795

[The Kraken]

Ah yes, that orbiter, that had been doing reconaissance of the lunar surface... damn shame.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19050795

 

Hi-res photos

 

To be fair it was pretty foggy on the moon at the time those images were taken.

[pap]

The trouble is he has a point, like all good conspiracy theorists you gloss over the awkward questions or the points that go against your theory and instead throw up something else each time obsessing over particular details that are hard to prove either way and ignoring the glaring holes in most arguments. The interent is full of brilliant debunkings by proper scientists of all the major moon landing conspiracy theories if you care to read them what I fail to understand is how this thread got locked into and endless loop about the type of dust and the irrelevant reflectors.

 

With respect, the other side of this debate hasn't even conceded that such a feat was feasible, so if we want to talk awkward questions, start there. Was a hoax technically feasible?

[CB Fry]

With respect, the other side of this debate hasn't even conceded that such a feat was feasible, so if we want to talk awkward questions, start there. Was a hoax technically feasible?

 

 

 

Surely the easiest argument against the nutjobs is it would be at least ten times harder to execute the hoax than it was to land on the moon.

 

So there you go. End of debate.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

No mate. I think you'll find that because you haven't explicitly come on here and said I'm not a horse's ass, I am one.

 

.. and on that the Forum reached a complete state of unanimity.

 

Now as you're obviously so keen to continue I hope you will not be forgetting your 'to do' list:

 

1 - Answer why you no longer have any apparent interest in the 'independent supporting evidence' of Apollo you once wanted.

2 - Explain how large scale low gravity & vacuum like conditions are (practicably) recreated here on Earth

3 - Tell us how NASA managed to fool the international scientific community into believing that Moon Rock samples are genuine.

4 - Provide some/any evidence of your alternate Lunar reflector design

5 - Expand on your brilliant NASA=NAZIS argument.

6 - Show us proof that your mate Jarrod has overcome his acne problems and no longer lives with his mum

7 - Provide a logical explanation why NASA sent a rover to the moon when this only makes the conspiracy harder to get away with.

8 - Name the manufacturer of the invisible 'wires' NASA makes such widespread use of.

9 - Tell us if you join in with the other conspiracy theorists who claim that Stanley Kubric made all those 'fake' Apollo movies.

10 - Ponder on the question why no reputable peer reviewed scientific journal has ever published a pro lunar conspiracy paper.

 

But nil desperandum my evidence averse friend - if you forget again I'll be back to remind you

[saint si]

Hi-res photos

 

To be fair it was pretty foggy on the moon at the time those images were taken.

 

Define "hi-res".

 

LRO is capable of resolving to 0.5m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter)

GeoEye (cited up thread as an example of a high res photo) is only 0.41m, so a mere ~20% improvement.

 

The Lunar Module is surprisingly small - 4m by 4m - so about the equivalent to 2 hatchbacks parked side by side. Now take a look at the cars on the GeoEye image (http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/Rome_09_11_09.jpg) and tell me one is vastly better than the other in terms of resolution?

[trousers]

Define "hi-res".

More than my 12 mega pixel Lumix

[pap]

.. and on that the Forum reached a complete state of unanimity.

 

Now as you're obviously so keen to continue I hope you will not be forgetting your 'to do' list:

 

1 - Answer why you no longer have any apparent interest in the 'independent supporting evidence' of Apollo you once wanted.

 

It's more fun to watch you implode.

 

2 - Explain how large scale low gravity & vacuum like conditions are (practicably) recreated here on Earth

 

To what end?

 

3 - Tell us how NASA managed to fool the international scientific community into believing that Moon Rock samples are genuine.

 

Jarrah covers this. ( http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html )

 

4 - Provide some/any evidence of your alternate Lunar reflector design

 

Again, to what end?

 

5 - Expand on your brilliant NASA=NAZIS argument.

 

Operation Paperclip ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip ) - the operation in which the US spirited top Nazi scientists back to the US.

 

6 - Show us proof that your mate Jarrod has overcome his acne problems and no longer lives with his mum

 

Attacking the man, not the argument.

 

7 - Provide a logical explanation why NASA sent a rover to the moon when this only makes the conspiracy harder to get away with.

 

I suppose "they didn't take one to the moon" might be a start. When I said they could have used dry beach sand earlier, were you under the impression that I thought they'd carried some to the moon?

 

See, you can just say you are taking a buggy, show pictures of a buggy on something that looks like the moon, get a handful of people to say they drove a buggy and guess what? Buggy on the moon.

 

It's not hard, and this may be distressing for you to hear, but that awesome tank on LV-426 in Aliens is not real either, despite them saying that they were taking it, and despite the fact we got some excellent video (much better than this Apollo stuff).

 

But wait a moment. I'm wasting my time. Aliens was made in 1986. That's far too recent for your tastes.

 

8 - Name the manufacturer of the invisible 'wires' NASA makes such widespread use of.

 

So, my mission here is to find the company that supplied the wires to NASA so they could fake the moon hoax, get them to admit it, preferably in writing, and post the results on here?

 

I'll er, get right back to you.

 

9 - Tell us if you join in with the other conspiracy theorists who claim that Stanley Kubric made all those 'fake' Apollo movies.

 

Wouldn't that be great? The kid in the Shining has an Apollo jumper. Ooooooh!

 

 

Funny thread on that here:-

 

http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=29163.0

 

 

10 - Ponder on the question why no reputable peer reviewed scientific journal has ever published a pro lunar conspiracy paper.

 

Since the Enlightenment, many scientists have positioned themselves as High Priestess-like arbiters of eternal truths. Objectivity, not subjectivity, is their mantra; or, at least, this is the illusion. In reality, just like the rest of us, all scientists are subjected to limitations of personality, politics, peer-group pressures, fashion and financial restraints.

 

Whisper it quietly; there are physicists, chemists and biologists whose lifetime study has led them to the same, seemingly, paradoxical conclusion: the existence of God. For them to publicly admit this, however, is as unlikely as it would be for them to express doubts as to the authenticity of the lunar landings: to do so would almost certainly mean instantaneous lost of both credibility and funding.

[pap]

Define "hi-res".

 

LRO is capable of resolving to 0.5m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter)

GeoEye (cited up thread as an example of a high res photo) is only 0.41m, so a mere ~20% improvement.

 

The Lunar Module is surprisingly small - 4m by 4m - so about the equivalent to 2 hatchbacks parked side by side. Now take a look at the cars on the GeoEye image (http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/Rome_09_11_09.jpg) and tell me one is vastly better than the other in terms of resolution?

 

The standard of acceptable visual proof has been established, along with the means to do it.

 

Get the ESO Very Large Telescope in Chile to get an image. trousers has mentioned this before, they said they were going to do it yonks ago, yet they haven't.

[The Kraken]

Define "hi-res".

 

LRO is capable of resolving to 0.5m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter)

GeoEye (cited up thread as an example of a high res photo) is only 0.41m, so a mere ~20% improvement.

 

The Lunar Module is surprisingly small - 4m by 4m - so about the equivalent to 2 hatchbacks parked side by side. Now take a look at the cars on the GeoEye image (http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/Rome_09_11_09.jpg) and tell me one is vastly better than the other in terms of resolution?

 

Is the only way of getting close up images of the moon to send up a rocket with a probe attached to orbit and take pictures from there?

 

As trousers rightly says; presenting images that look like were taken on a 1970s polaroid is hardly "hi-res", however you're looking to adapt the definition. And given that we have the technology to take photos of the deep space field, showing galaxies trillions of miles away and billions of years ago, I am a little surprised that mankind hasn't yet been able to point some telescopes in the right direction and capture a decent image that the whole planet would surely have interest in.

Edited 18 December, 2012 by The Kraken

[pap]

Surely the easiest argument against the nutjobs is it would be at least ten times harder to execute the hoax than it was to land on the moon.

 

So there you go. End of debate.

 

What's harder?

 

1) Making a movie about going to the moon?

2) Going to the moon?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

But Pulp, the forum finds your so called answers to be evasive or grossly inadequate - so no change there then. 2/10

 

While you try ever more desperately to come up with something remotely convincing, here is your kind of proof that Japan is as empty as your silly theory:

 

 

QED