Posts: 1,141
Threads: 86
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
26-11-2010, 03:23 AM
(This post was last modified: 26-11-2010, 03:35 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
That's very interesting. I take it you are not disputing my insinuation that faking a time-sequence study like one he links would be a piece of cake.
At http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola..._moon.html I find only a more general photo locating what I regard as a fake one. That bothers me.
Matthew Lewis Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:Tom Lehrer used to sing about the wonderful things they were doing with plastics nowadays. Today its with digital technology. They could have Neil and Buzz sontering about the surface of the Moon if they wanted to. It is my understanding that the Hubble Space Telescope has been forbidden to look at the Moon. If that's true, I can imagine only one reason, which is that it would expose the stunning hoax NASA has perpetrated on the world. The Hubble telescope is not forbidden to look at the Moon. It has done so in the past. It does not however have the resolution to make out anything smaller than a football field. A telescope on Earth or in orbit would have to have an objective mirror over 100 feet across to make out objects left on the Moon. The Hubble's mirror is just over 2 meters.
The Hubble gets the impressive pictures it gets because the objects it focuses on very large. They are also very faint. The Hubble has the ability, because it is in orbit, to focus on one point far longer than any terrestrial based scope enabling it to see very faint distant galaxies better. It also does not have to deal with light pollution. There are bigger scopes on Earth with better resolution at the distance of the Moon but still none big enough to resolve objects on the Moon.
Posts: 22
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
26-11-2010, 03:34 AM
(This post was last modified: 26-11-2010, 03:48 AM by Matthew Lewis.)
I'm not getting involved. I have no opinion. I honestly haven't been paying that close attention. I believe I only mentioned the resolving ability of the Hubble.
James H. Fetzer Wrote:That's very interesting. I take it you are not disputing my insinuation that faking a time-sequence study like one he links would be a piece of cake.
Matthew Lewis Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:Tom Lehrer used to sing about the wonderful things they were doing with plastics nowadays. Today its with digital technology. They could have Neil and Buzz sontering about the surface of the Moon if they wanted to. It is my understanding that the Hubble Space Telescope has been forbidden to look at the Moon. If that's true, I can imagine only one reason, which is that it would expose the stunning hoax NASA has perpetrated on the world. The Hubble telescope is not forbidden to look at the Moon. It has done so in the past. It does not however have the resolution to make out anything smaller than a football field. A telescope on Earth or in orbit would have to have an objective mirror over 100 feet across to make out objects left on the Moon. The Hubble's mirror is just over 2 meters.
The Hubble gets the impressive pictures it gets because the objects it focuses on very large. They are also very faint. The Hubble has the ability, because it is in orbit, to focus on one point far longer than any terrestrial based scope enabling it to see very faint distant galaxies better. It also does not have to deal with light pollution. There are bigger scopes on Earth with better resolution at the distance of the Moon but still none big enough to resolve objects on the Moon.
Posts: 4,044
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
ANOTHER one!
Why not invite 9-Iron and Simpleton to join the fray?
Why not ask the Brazilian pervert to chime in?
As Coleman Hawkins might put it, there's disorder at the border.
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Posts: 22
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
26-11-2010, 04:03 AM
(This post was last modified: 26-11-2010, 04:06 AM by Matthew Lewis.)
Charles Drago Wrote:ANOTHER one!
Why not invite 9-Iron and Simpleton to join the fray?
Why not ask the Brazilian pervert to chime in?
As Coleman Hawkins might put it, there's disorder at the border. Is there a problem with me posting factual information here? I've been a member for more than a year. I admittedly have not posted often because the last time I was met with hostility.
Posts: 98
Threads: 4
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
26-11-2010, 04:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 26-11-2010, 04:18 AM by Peter Dawson.)
Professor Fetzer, first you tell us that someone has "forbidden" the Hubble telescope from being pointed at the moon, and share with us your conclusion that this can only be in order to stop evidence that the moon missions were faked from being revealed. Then someone chimes in with some pertinent facts about the resolution of the Hubble, and you respond by linking to a page with Hubble telescope images of the moon.
Do you see the problem here?
While assuring us, without any substatiating evidence, that the LRO images showing evidence of Apollo artifacts on the moon could all be faked, you lead us to believe that evidence could be got if only they'd turn the Hubble towards the moon. Next post we discover your views on the Hubble are incorrect, and in your next post, you confirm that your views on the Hubble were incorrect.
Why should we take as gospel your conjecture about the likelihood that all the LRO Apollo images are faked - your word against that of the community of scientists responsible for retrieving the LRO images - when in the next breath after pronouncing this slander against these scientists, you prove yourself to be completely out of touch with the facts of the matter, even as you are attempting to guide the view of others following this discussion?
In short: lack credibility much, Professor Fetzer?
James H. Fetzer Wrote:That's very interesting. I take it you are not disputing my insinuation that faking a time-sequence study like one he links would be a piece of cake.
At http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola..._moon.html I find only a more general photo locating what I regard as a fake one. That bothers me.
Matthew Lewis Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:Tom Lehrer used to sing about the wonderful things they were doing with plastics nowadays. Today its with digital technology. They could have Neil and Buzz sontering about the surface of the Moon if they wanted to. It is my understanding that the Hubble Space Telescope has been forbidden to look at the Moon. If that's true, I can imagine only one reason, which is that it would expose the stunning hoax NASA has perpetrated on the world. The Hubble telescope is not forbidden to look at the Moon. It has done so in the past. It does not however have the resolution to make out anything smaller than a football field. A telescope on Earth or in orbit would have to have an objective mirror over 100 feet across to make out objects left on the Moon. The Hubble's mirror is just over 2 meters.
The Hubble gets the impressive pictures it gets because the objects it focuses on very large. They are also very faint. The Hubble has the ability, because it is in orbit, to focus on one point far longer than any terrestrial based scope enabling it to see very faint distant galaxies better. It also does not have to deal with light pollution. There are bigger scopes on Earth with better resolution at the distance of the Moon but still none big enough to resolve objects on the Moon.
Posts: 22
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
The link he posted was one of two provided by me. You may not have seen it as I edited my post a couple times as I added links.
Peter Dawson Wrote:Professor Fetzer, first you tell us that someone has "forbidden" the Hubble telescope to be pointed at the moon, and share with us your conclusion that this can only be in order to stop evidence that the moon missions were faked from being revealed. Then someone chimes in with some pertinent facts about the resolution of the Hubble, and you respond by linking to a page with Hubble telescope images of the moon.
Do you see the problem here?
While assuring us, without any substatiating evidence, that the LRO images showing evidence of Apollo artifacts on the moon could all be faked, you lead us to believe that evidence could be got if only they'd turn the Hubble towards the moon. Next post we discover your views on the Hubble are incorrect, and in your next post, you confirm that your views on the Hubble were incorrect.
Why should we take as gospel your conjecture about the likelihood that all the LRO Apollo images are faked - your word against that of the community of scientists responsible for retrieving the LRO images - when in the next breath after pronouncing this slander against these scientists, you prove yourself to be completely out of touch with the facts of the matter, even as you are attempting to guide the view of others following this discussion?
In short: lack credibility much, Professor Fetzer?
James H. Fetzer Wrote:That's very interesting. I take it you are not disputing my insinuation that faking a time-sequence study like one he links would be a piece of cake.
At http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola..._moon.html I find only a more general photo locating what I regard as a fake one. That bothers me.
Matthew Lewis Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:Tom Lehrer used to sing about the wonderful things they were doing with plastics nowadays. Today its with digital technology. They could have Neil and Buzz sontering about the surface of the Moon if they wanted to. It is my understanding that the Hubble Space Telescope has been forbidden to look at the Moon. If that's true, I can imagine only one reason, which is that it would expose the stunning hoax NASA has perpetrated on the world. The Hubble telescope is not forbidden to look at the Moon. It has done so in the past. It does not however have the resolution to make out anything smaller than a football field. A telescope on Earth or in orbit would have to have an objective mirror over 100 feet across to make out objects left on the Moon. The Hubble's mirror is just over 2 meters.
The Hubble gets the impressive pictures it gets because the objects it focuses on very large. They are also very faint. The Hubble has the ability, because it is in orbit, to focus on one point far longer than any terrestrial based scope enabling it to see very faint distant galaxies better. It also does not have to deal with light pollution. There are bigger scopes on Earth with better resolution at the distance of the Moon but still none big enough to resolve objects on the Moon.
Posts: 98
Threads: 4
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
Matthew Lewis Wrote:The link he posted was one of two provided by me. You may not have seen it as I edited my post a couple times as I added links.
Ah, I see. So he's quite prepared to slander the Hubble scientists as well as the LRO scientist - the Hubble scientists really haven't ever pointed the Hubble at the Apollo landing sites, according to Professor Fetzer.
Posts: 22
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
Peter Dawson Wrote:Matthew Lewis Wrote:The link he posted was one of two provided by me. You may not have seen it as I edited my post a couple times as I added links.
Ah, I see. So he's quite prepared to slander the Hubble scientists as well as the LRO scientist - the Hubble scientists really haven't ever pointed the Hubble at the Apollo landing sites, according to Professor Fetzer. I don't know. I don't want to get involved. He's free to think it is faked if he wants. It doesn't matter either way as the math shows the resolving power of the telescope is not great enough to see anything anyway.
Posts: 1,141
Threads: 86
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
The sentence said, "If that is true", not that "It is true". And if it were true, then
I can imagine no other reason that the one I have advanced. Your understanding
of logic appears to be no more substantial than your understanding of the moon hoax.
Given everything else we know about it--including (8), (9), and (10), where you
haven't a clue--it is far more probable that the image you linked was fabricated
rather than real, which is very easy to do with digital technology. That has to be the
reason they"lost" the moon landing tapes, Peter: so they could redo them better!
I know it lies beyond the scope of your imagination to contemplate it, but the weight
of the evidence, I am sorry to say, suggests that men have never gone to the moon.
Peter Dawson Wrote:Professor Fetzer, first you tell us that someone has "forbidden" the Hubble telescope from being pointed at the moon, and share with us your conclusion that this can only be in order to stop evidence that the moon missions were faked from being revealed. Then someone chimes in with some pertinent facts about the resolution of the Hubble, and you respond by linking to a page with Hubble telescope images of the moon.
Do you see the problem here?
While assuring us, without any substatiating evidence, that the LRO images showing evidence of Apollo artifacts on the moon could all be faked, you lead us to believe that evidence could be got if only they'd turn the Hubble towards the moon. Next post we discover your views on the Hubble are incorrect, and in your next post, you confirm that your views on the Hubble were incorrect.
Why should we take as gospel your conjecture about the likelihood that all the LRO Apollo images are faked - your word against that of the community of scientists responsible for retrieving the LRO images - when in the next breath after pronouncing this slander against these scientists, you prove yourself to be completely out of touch with the facts of the matter, even as you are attempting to guide the view of others following this discussion?
In short: lack credibility much, Professor Fetzer?
James H. Fetzer Wrote:That's very interesting. I take it you are not disputing my insinuation that faking a time-sequence study like one he links would be a piece of cake.
At http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola..._moon.html I find only a more general photo locating what I regard as a fake one. That bothers me.
Matthew Lewis Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:Tom Lehrer used to sing about the wonderful things they were doing with plastics nowadays. Today its with digital technology. They could have Neil and Buzz sontering about the surface of the Moon if they wanted to. It is my understanding that the Hubble Space Telescope has been forbidden to look at the Moon. If that's true, I can imagine only one reason, which is that it would expose the stunning hoax NASA has perpetrated on the world. The Hubble telescope is not forbidden to look at the Moon. It has done so in the past. It does not however have the resolution to make out anything smaller than a football field. A telescope on Earth or in orbit would have to have an objective mirror over 100 feet across to make out objects left on the Moon. The Hubble's mirror is just over 2 meters.
The Hubble gets the impressive pictures it gets because the objects it focuses on very large. They are also very faint. The Hubble has the ability, because it is in orbit, to focus on one point far longer than any terrestrial based scope enabling it to see very faint distant galaxies better. It also does not have to deal with light pollution. There are bigger scopes on Earth with better resolution at the distance of the Moon but still none big enough to resolve objects on the Moon.
Posts: 98
Threads: 4
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
James H. Fetzer Wrote:The sentence said, "If that is true", not that "It is true". And if it were true, then
I can imagine no other reason that the one I have advanced. Your understanding
of logic appears to be no more substantial than your understanding of the moon hoax.
Given everything else we know about it--including (8), (9), and (10), where you
haven't a clue--it is far more probable that the image you linked was fabricated
rather than real, which is very easy to do with digital technology. That has to be the
reason they"lost" the moon landing tapes, Peter: so they could redo them better!
I know it lies beyond the scope of your imagination to contemplate it, but the weight
of the evidence, I am sorry to say, suggests that men have never gone to the moon.
As I said earlier in response to your questions, what you fail to take into account is the fact that it's not simply television images which would have to be faked, but all sorts of data collected from the missions, so that even if absolutely all original sources of Apollo data had since gone missing, the actual values of the data, recorded in countless secondary sources, sit with us for all time and are open to falsification by any and every later collection of data taken from the moon.
Data collected from the moon would be unique to the moon, and if they made that data up for the Apollo missions, they couldn't possibly have guesstimated perfectly accurate data in each and every case.
So Professor Fetzer, your theory finds itself with a little insurmountable problem - there is a dog that didn't bark, that should have barked by now if your theory had any truth to it: Scientists from all over the world should long ago have started to notice discrepancies between their freshly collected data from the moon, and the data recorded from the Apollo missions, yet this has not occurred.
|
