Why haven't we been back to the moon?

[HalfLotus]

Bunch of good fiction and really, really bad pictures.

"See that fuzzy white dot next to a dozen other fuzzy white dots? That's a spaceship!"

I like this part though:

"Terry Galloway, team leader for Apollo tracking at Chabot Observatory, provides more detail as follows: "We did team with BellComm of Washington DC and NASA to conduct optical tracking of Apollo spacecraft from Apollo 7 through 17.
...
My own personal records were lost in the Berkeley Firestorm of 1991."

So much for independent verification. On the contrary, I think you may have tracked down another conspirator!

And darned if her record keeping failures aren't on par with NASA's. Funny that!

[Darius871]

I think you may have tracked down another conspirator!

Now I know you've just been an elaborate parody from day one. Good show old chap!

[BeBMan]

HL doesn't exist.

[Guynemer]

Holy ****.

Either you are one of the best trolls ever, or you really are just as retarded as ZakuDL.

[HalfLotus]

Ok, so you harp on something that's of relatively minor significance compared to the very thorough analysis of the actual footage that was below that which shows conclusively that the shots weren't faked. Gotcha.

His beginning and end summaries completely misrepresent the video, so he's either stupid or lying. He even put it in red text to say, "Here's my main argument, look at it!". He ****ed it up, and had his talking points demolished by yours truly.

If you're expecting him to leave all the really important stuff someplace else other than in the summaries, then you've got some seriously low expectations for your little 'debunking' hero. Of course he didn't because the rest of the article is bad stills and unsubstantive captions. I read all of it, and it's all ****.

Did you even watch the video, or read the page you linked? It's looking like you did neither, but you toss around broad unsubstatiated claims about "thorough analysis" which "shows conclusively", blah, blah, blah.

He engages in typical disinfo tactics: inundate the reader with irrelevant information; deride and mock the target; and make deliberately misleading claims about the targets ideas.

But lo and behold, if you actually read what he says, he's ****ing clueless and plainly can't understand a very simple video. The video I linked may or may not be accurate, but that asswipe of a webpage you linked demonstrates nether. What it demonstrates is that its author, and you, are ****ing morons.

Almost as ****ing moronic as linking a page of 'independent observation' of Apollo, when they openly state they're cooperating with NASA. LOL!

[RGBVideo]

This is getting entertaining

A decent amateur astronomer with a 6 inch reflector can easily track objects down to an arcminute or so. Below that you begin to talk about really precise measurements. Over a moment arm of, say, 5000 km the parallax on an object at 300000 km is ~0.95 degrees or 57 arcminutes. This means that two amateurs cooperating could easily have figured out the range to the apollo lunar module + command module to within a few thousand kilometers when they were all the way out at the moon.

Now, to check if they could have seen apollo:

the cross-sectional area of the two joined modules is ~100 m^2. The intensity of solar light at the earth's distance is ~1400 W/m^2. With an albedo of ~0.8 (much of the spacecraft was white/gold foil) the spacecraft would have been reflecting off ~110 000 W of sunlight. We will assume that this light was isometrically radiated (since the moon was about half full during Apollo 11, this is sufficient for our purposes). The sun emits about 4*10^26 W of power, at a distance of 1.5*10^8 km. At 300k km the apparent luminosity of Apollo was therefore (1.1*10^5)*(1.5*10^8)^2 / (4*10^26)*(3*10^5)^2 = 6.9*10^-17 that of the Sun's. By the retarded system of measurements astro people use, the sun from the earth is ~ -27 in apparent magnitude. Apollo would therefore have been a magnitude 13 star or so. According to this chart:

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/science/star-magnitude.htm

This is about the limit for visibility in an 8" telescope.

I only ever had a 6" reflector, but there are loads of people out there with far better than that.

And despite all those fancy numbers, no one did. Darn.

A PhD level physics expert just spent 10 minutes in explaining the elementary calculations in order to explain why even civilians could observe the moon mission when it was being done and your answer is to retort that elementary maths is mumbo jumbo?



I bet you don't even know what a watt means!



Ignorant Americans Are you a double login of an established poster who is trolling or are you just a ****** pretending to be an expert on a matter you don't have the slightest clue of?

[Darius871]

Are you a double login of an established poster who is trolling

I thought that was already obvious. My money's on Drake, Lori, or me.

[HalfLotus]

A PhD level physics expert just spent 10 minutes in explaining the elementary calculations in order to explain why even civilians could observe the moon mission when it was being done and your answer is to retort that elementary maths is mumbo jumbo?

Who's he arguing with dip****?

"We can see stuff in outer space with telescopes." -KH

No ****ing ****. You don't need a PhD or 10 minute math lesson to prove it, moron.

KH wins the non-argument of the day, give him his captain obvious wings.

[Darius871]

Who's he arguing with dip****?

"We can see **** in outer space with telescopes." -KH

No ****ing ****. KH wins the non-argument of the day, give him his captain obvious wings.

The point's not that telescopes can see sh*t, but that it's so easy to see said sh*t that it's well nigh impossible that the countless amateur astronomers on every corner of the globe would have kept silent about there having been nothing there to see, except in your own little world where NASA is capable of controlling everybody with an adequate telescope, including the Russians.

That's unless, as KH qualified, you do believe that we at least circled the moon and simply didn't land. Is that your belief? If so, why was the former within our technological capability but not the latter?

[Darius871]

The point's not that telescopes can see sh*t, but that it's so easy to see said sh*t that it's well nigh impossible that the countless amateur astronomers on every corner of the globe would have kept silent about there having been nothing there to see, except in your own little world where NASA is capable of controlling everybody with an adequate telescope, including the Russians.

That's unless, as KH qualified, you do believe that we at least circled the moon and simply didn't land. Is that your belief? If so, why was the former within our technological capability but not the latter?

No, dip****, it takes a special kind of telescope that only NASA's disinfo agents would have... damn, wrong login

[Guynemer]

Rookie mistake, Darius.

[Flubber]

Keeping a spacecraft along the Earth-Moon axis when it's actually only a couple of hundred miles up would imply that the spacecraft was providing almost 1g of acceleration for the whole time.

Anybody with a modicum of sense can see that would be orders of magnitude more difficult than actually, you know, flying the ship to the moon and back.

Plus an object at LEO altitude would show massively wrong parallax to amateur astronomers at the time who independently observed its position in the sky for at least part of the journey.

What a ****ing nincompoop.

Thanks KH-- you jumped in where I wanted to lead HL-- the idea that its far easier to actually fly to the moon than it is to maintain a position on the moon earth axis and stay undetected while in low earth orbit-- Thats why I was asking whether the capsule actually took off etc etc

[HalfLotus]

The point's not that telescopes can see sh*t, but that it's so easy to see said sh*t that it's well nigh impossible that the countless amateur astronomers on every corner of the globe would have kept silent about there having been nothing there to see, except in your own little world where NASA is capable of controlling everybody with an adequate telescope, including the Russians.

They saw plenty of **** in low orbit. They then promptly jerked off on their Galileo Specials and went back to sleep.

And honestly this Russian thing is the best ya'll got? Washington phones Moscow, "Hey we're gonna pull a doozie next week, let it slide and we'll give ya the plans to next springs ICBM line!"

In any event, what if Russia says the landings were faked? Washington immediately smears it as Commie propaganda, and how many people are gonna buy the Moscow accusation? None. End result: Commies with egg on face, and a public opinion they can't hope to shape.

Commies been saying for 50 years that oil is abiotic. Do any of you believe it? Nope you still think we're 'running out', and we need to build a windmill on every hill from here to the moon. Case closed.

[HalfLotus]

Who said anything about Apollo staying in the moon/earth axis during the mission? In what way is that requisite for the hoax?

[Flubber]

Now I know you've just been an elaborate parody from day one. Good show old chap!

I don't care if HL is a parody or someone's triple login or whatever. Its actually kind of amusing to deal with peoplemwho make half-assed assertions. I think a lot of people share that view somewhat since a thread like this gets a reasonable number of responses.

Back on the topic-- My problem with moon conspiracy theories are many but some of the more basic are these

1. I don't think the number of people directly involved could keep this secret this long.

2. The Soviets would have known if the US did not go to the moon and would have not kept quiet

3. Lots of people could have tracked the trip. All those white blobs would have been quite distict and identifiable to any avid astronomer and the one that moved . . . well golleee gee-- thats a spacecraft

4. The things conspiracy theorists ( like HL here) say that NASA actually did are harder to do than actually going to the moon