Another Question Not Yet Asked By The Whiny Moon Landing Conspiracists. | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 81847434 United States 01/13/2022 08:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I just cannot believe this. None of them have thought to ask: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 81828905 "Why Did None of the Thousands of Professional Astronomers, or Any of the Amateur People, Down Here on Earth Use Their Telescopes to See the Lunar Lander and Astronauts Moving Around Up There On the Moon, and Snap a Photo or Take a Video?" "Why Was NASA Not Interested in That Sort of Data? Did They Forget It Was Possible To Do That?" This would be another killer question. Lol. Guess they cannot say much. Lol. |
LasVegasBrad
User ID: 79661142 United States 01/14/2022 07:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You ask that stupid question? and think somehow that "proves" any idiot has ever set foot on the Moon? We hear that the ex-Hubble telescope was not able to resolve anything that small. The new Webb telescope is conveniently 1 million miles away. So forget any good Moon pics ever. So many things do not add up. It only takes one impossible thing, and it all goes away. My 2 favorite things: impossible space suit, impossible retro rocket. Not even counting the impossible radiation shielding. Or impossible navigation necessary for the moon take-off and perfect orbit matching to the command module. With a calculator. But you guys are just shills anyway. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 37355702 United States 01/14/2022 07:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 46210440 United States 01/14/2022 07:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
LasVegasBrad
User ID: 79661142 United States 01/14/2022 09:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I utterly believe the entire Moon thing is fake. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 25209280 United States 01/14/2022 09:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I just cannot believe this. None of them have thought to ask: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 81828905 "Why Did None of the Thousands of Professional Astronomers, or Any of the Amateur People, Down Here on Earth Use Their Telescopes to See the Lunar Lander and Astronauts Moving Around Up There On the Moon, and Snap a Photo or Take a Video?" "Why Was NASA Not Interested in That Sort of Data? Did They Forget It Was Possible To Do That?" This would be another killer question. Lol. because the telescopes can't zoom into the actual surface of the moon and take photos of human sized people on the moon surface that's why no one asked that question cause its a dumb dumb question |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76559242 Germany 01/14/2022 09:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I am an actual engineer. I have truly designed Power converting circuits for space. I have been in Nasa buildings, knew some of their engineers. I have been at the Ft Collins test facility. I have consulted with Hughes Space on satellite microwave transmitters. Quoting: LasVegasBrad I utterly believe the entire Moon thing is fake. good dude! it was filmed at a doe site in tonopah in the amerikan state of nevada |
LasVegasBrad
User ID: 79661142 United States 01/15/2022 10:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I dont know where it was "filmed". But look at this 13 year old headline. Talk about fake news. NASA lost moon footage, but Hollywood restores it www.ctvnews.ca/nasa-lost-moon-footage-but-hollywood-restores-it-1.417599 How very convenient. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79009989 United States 01/15/2022 10:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Using an amateur telescope to see the lunar lander leaving the moon, or to see the orbital stage leaving moon orbit and coming back to earth. LOL <math xmlns=" [link to www.w3.org] <mi>arctan</mi> <mo>⁡<!-- ⁡ --></mo> <mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mfrac> <mrow> <mn>10</mn> <mi>m</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>380000</mn> <mi>k</mi> <mi>m</mi> </mrow> </mfrac> </mrow> <mo>≈<!-- ≈ --></mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mo>−<!-- − --></mo> <mn>6</mn> </mrow> </msup> <mi>deg</mi> </math> So scientific. So compelling. One simple problem............................................ Apparently NASA forgot that these space propulsion systems have bright flames pointing out of them when maneuvering. Search up Saturn V flame magnitude. Internet no like such information, appears scrubbed. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 81756785 United States 01/15/2022 10:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79009989 United States 01/15/2022 01:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If my maff is correct, an object with an absolute magnitude of about 66 would be visible on the unlit moon at night. Now a forum genius will calculate the luminosity of the orbiter, lander and return vehicle. Apparently these statistics are not liked by the nets. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79009989 United States 01/15/2022 01:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If my maff is correct, an object with an absolute magnitude of about 66 would be visible on the unlit moon at night. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79009989 Now a forum genius will calculate the luminosity of the orbiter, lander and return vehicle. Apparently these statistics are not liked by the nets. OOps, inB4 a genius tells me theres no real luminosity from those object. Allow me clafiry. The flames coming from the nozzles of the rockets on those space vehicles. Wow you had me there for a millisecond. |
StopsniffinmeBrandon
User ID: 80068884 United States 01/15/2022 01:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If my maff is correct, an object with an absolute magnitude of about 66 would be visible on the unlit moon at night. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79009989 Now a forum genius will calculate the luminosity of the orbiter, lander and return vehicle. Apparently these statistics are not liked by the nets. OOps, inB4 a genius tells me theres no real luminosity from those object. Allow me clafiry. The flames coming from the nozzles of the rockets on those space vehicles. Wow you had me there for a millisecond. As a Whiny Moon Landing Conspiracist, my evidence comes from the photos the astronauts allegedly took on the Moon. 1) A hazy sunset photo - With no atmosphere, the Sun would always look like a spotlight, with sharp defined edges. 2) Perfect detail visible in the shadows- The Kodak color transparency film used in the Hasselblad cameras, did not have the dynamic range to be able to capture detail from the brightest whites, to the deepest shadows. Again, with no atmosphere, there is no light diffusion, and all images would have extreme contrast. But you can see the fine detail on the astronauts backpack as the astronaut climbs down the lunar lander in the shade, which should be pitch black. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79009989 United States 01/15/2022 01:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If my maff is correct, an object with an absolute magnitude of about 66 would be visible on the unlit moon at night. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79009989 Now a forum genius will calculate the luminosity of the orbiter, lander and return vehicle. Apparently these statistics are not liked by the nets. OOps, inB4 a genius tells me theres no real luminosity from those object. Allow me clafiry. The flames coming from the nozzles of the rockets on those space vehicles. Wow you had me there for a millisecond. As a Whiny Moon Landing Conspiracist, my evidence comes from the photos the astronauts allegedly took on the Moon. 1) A hazy sunset photo - With no atmosphere, the Sun would always look like a spotlight, with sharp defined edges. 2) Perfect detail visible in the shadows- The Kodak color transparency film used in the Hasselblad cameras, did not have the dynamic range to be able to capture detail from the brightest whites, to the deepest shadows. Again, with no atmosphere, there is no light diffusion, and all images would have extreme contrast. But you can see the fine detail on the astronauts backpack as the astronaut climbs down the lunar lander in the shade, which should be pitch black. Good points, but I think OP is considering going to the moon the "conspiracy theory". |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 47055399 United States 01/15/2022 01:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79009989 United States 01/16/2022 11:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Morrissons are cunts
User ID: 46133311 United Kingdom 01/16/2022 12:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Does anyone really think a handful of parachutes could slow the descent of a six ton space capsule travelling into our atmosphere at 25 thousand miles per hour? No wonder there is ZERO footage of those moments. To believe that is possible is monumental absurdity. Morrissons are cunts |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79009989 United States 01/17/2022 08:29 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 81886705 Australia 01/17/2022 08:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I just cannot believe this. None of them have thought to ask: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 81828905 "Why Did None of the Thousands of Professional Astronomers, or Any of the Amateur People, Down Here on Earth Use Their Telescopes to See the Lunar Lander and Astronauts Moving Around Up There On the Moon, and Snap a Photo or Take a Video?" "Why Was NASA Not Interested in That Sort of Data? Did They Forget It Was Possible To Do That?" This would be another killer question. Lol. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 81886705 Australia 01/17/2022 08:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
JustmeTX
User ID: 80193276 United States 01/17/2022 08:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I just cannot believe this. None of them have thought to ask: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 81828905 "Why Did None of the Thousands of Professional Astronomers, or Any of the Amateur People, Down Here on Earth Use Their Telescopes to See the Lunar Lander and Astronauts Moving Around Up There On the Moon, and Snap a Photo or Take a Video?" "Why Was NASA Not Interested in That Sort of Data? Did They Forget It Was Possible To Do That?" This would be another killer question. Lol. There is a basic law of physics that relates telescope lens diameter to possible object resolution at a defined distance. There are no telescopes with the diameter needed to resolve man sized objects on the Moon viewed from Earth. Not to mention atmospheric distortion. "Limits of Resolution: The Rayleigh Criterion" [link to courses.lumenlearning.com (secure)] Theta = 1.22 (Lamda/D) [link to pressbooks.bccampus.ca (secure)] Last Edited by JustmeTX on 01/17/2022 08:39 AM Justme |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79009989 United States 01/17/2022 09:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I just cannot believe this. None of them have thought to ask: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 81828905 "Why Did None of the Thousands of Professional Astronomers, or Any of the Amateur People, Down Here on Earth Use Their Telescopes to See the Lunar Lander and Astronauts Moving Around Up There On the Moon, and Snap a Photo or Take a Video?" "Why Was NASA Not Interested in That Sort of Data? Did They Forget It Was Possible To Do That?" This would be another killer question. Lol. There is a basic law of physics that relates telescope lens diameter to possible object resolution at a defined distance. There are no telescopes with the diameter needed to resolve man sized objects on the Moon viewed from Earth. Not to mention atmospheric distortion. "Limits of Resolution: The Rayleigh Criterion" [link to courses.lumenlearning.com (secure)] Theta = 1.22 (Lamda/D) [link to pressbooks.bccampus.ca (secure)] So how do telescopes see stars that are trillions of miles away, with a relatively small diameter? LUMINOSITY Since you are so smart, how about you answer the question about Saturn V LUMINOSITY? Were you aware the Apollo rockets had flames shooting out of them? |
JustmeTX
User ID: 80193276 United States 01/17/2022 10:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I just cannot believe this. None of them have thought to ask: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 81828905 "Why Did None of the Thousands of Professional Astronomers, or Any of the Amateur People, Down Here on Earth Use Their Telescopes to See the Lunar Lander and Astronauts Moving Around Up There On the Moon, and Snap a Photo or Take a Video?" "Why Was NASA Not Interested in That Sort of Data? Did They Forget It Was Possible To Do That?" This would be another killer question. Lol. There is a basic law of physics that relates telescope lens diameter to possible object resolution at a defined distance. There are no telescopes with the diameter needed to resolve man sized objects on the Moon viewed from Earth. Not to mention atmospheric distortion. "Limits of Resolution: The Rayleigh Criterion" [link to courses.lumenlearning.com (secure)] Theta = 1.22 (Lamda/D) [link to pressbooks.bccampus.ca (secure)] So how do telescopes see stars that are trillions of miles away, with a relatively small diameter? LUMINOSITY Since you are so smart, how about you answer the question about Saturn V LUMINOSITY? Were you aware the Apollo rockets had flames shooting out of them? I just showed you a law of physics that you seemed unaware of. If you don't like it go complain to the creator of the universe. Bringing up other points is irrelevant. You can believe whatever you want. I was just answering your first question. I typically get paid to provide lessons in engineering and physics. How much are you offering? :) Last Edited by JustmeTX on 01/17/2022 10:34 AM Justme |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 81621734 United States 01/17/2022 10:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
LHP598
User ID: 80141479 United States 01/17/2022 01:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Does anyone really think a handful of parachutes could slow the descent of a six ton space capsule travelling into our atmosphere at 25 thousand miles per hour? Quoting: Morrissons are cunts No wonder there is ZERO footage of those moments. To believe that is possible is monumental absurdity. No, It was air friction that slowed the spacecraft to terminal velocity then the parachutes were deployed. Only those that feel the need to prove they don't have a clue what they are talking about think only the parachutes slowed it from 25 thousand miles per hour. If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
LHP598
User ID: 80141479 United States 01/17/2022 01:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As for seeing the rocket flames from Earth. The Saturn V first and second stage was used up and discarded getting to orbit. The SIV-B third stage was used for the Translunar injection burn and I've heard that WAS viewed by many on Earth. They were pushed back by the rocket on the service module and that would likely have been hard to see as the burn would have started around the back side of the moon and continued as it was traveling towards the Earth with the rocket pointed the other direction. If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 81859464 United States 01/17/2022 01:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I am an actual engineer. I have truly designed Power converting circuits for space. I have been in Nasa buildings, knew some of their engineers. I have been at the Ft Collins test facility. I have consulted with Hughes Space on satellite microwave transmitters. Quoting: LasVegasBrad I utterly believe the entire Moon thing is fake. good dude! it was filmed at a doe site in tonopah in the amerikan state of nevada Yes they filmed the tests and trial runs in Nevada, get over it. That does not change the fact, that they actually went to the moon. |