|
Post by PeterB on Aug 8, 2007 21:25:38 GMT -4
As for the Hubble pictures, my boss has several that he had access to when he worked for NASA. I have no reason to believe otherwise that they are genuine, but do believe that they are "touched up" from time to time to keep certain "unnatural" aspects of them secret (ie.space craft). But that's my .02 and I have no way of proving it... G'day jhm69, and welcome to Apollohoax. Why do you think the photos have been touched up? No doubt of that. If nothing else, Hubble's pictures have shown just how beautiful the universe is.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 8, 2007 21:36:12 GMT -4
I don't discount the fact that most people only seek information to prove or disprove their own belief systems. But in theory it can be done. It's just that no one has been willing to put their money where their mouth is. It's a lot of money to put where that mouth is. However, at least in the case of people who accept the reality of Apollo, there is proof other than photos, such as the rocks collected on the missions (much much more and varied than could have been collected by robots) and the signals received from the Moon in real time (no convincing explanation as to how it might have been faked). As others have pointed out, this won't help if the trip is only into Earth orbit. But another problem is this: some Hoax Believers have suggested that NASA has sent up unmanned spacecraft looking like Lunar Module Descent Stages to the Moon, which then automatically deploy stuff around them to make it look like they were placed by the astronauts. In other words, there are HBs who will reject any evidence provided today. One thing I've found interesting is that the US Government will have a difficult time masking extraterrestrial life when paying citizens start seeing extraterrestrial space craft circumnavigating the globe. [/quote] Well, let's see if space tourists report UFOs first. Also remember that the USA isn't the only country to have placed people in orbit. The Russians are the only people to have sent tourists into space, and presumably have no reason to protect the US's interests. Neither do the Chinese.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 8, 2007 23:30:59 GMT -4
By the way, seeing pictures of galaxies that appear to the naked eye as stars from earth is really cool!
Hate to burst the bubble, but only one galaxy is visible to the naked eye, and that is Andromeda, our closest nieghbour. The things that Hubble mostly takes images of are either in our own galaxy, or are invisible to our eyes.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 9, 2007 0:21:29 GMT -4
Hate to burst the bubble, but only one galaxy is visible to the naked eye, and that is Andromeda, our closest nieghbour. And Andromeda doesn't look like a star to the naked eye. It is a faint fuzzy patch of light.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 9, 2007 0:25:40 GMT -4
Well, originally to the HST everything was a faint fuzzy patch of light.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Aug 9, 2007 0:27:21 GMT -4
Hate to burst the bubble, but only one galaxy is visible to the naked eye, and that is Andromeda, our closest nieghbour. Several errors here - M31 isn't the closest galaxy to ours, there are several faint dwarf galaxies that are closer. Also, there are three other galaxies that can be seen with the naked eye. The Large and Small Magellanic Clouds are easily visible to anyone in the right hemisphere, and according to the following link, M-33 in Triangulum is visible when seeing conditions are good enough. seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/m/m033.html
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 9, 2007 5:01:43 GMT -4
I know I have said this before, but I am going to say it again.
Why would NASA want any part in hiding evidence of extra-terrestrial life? This is, of course, the agency who has just launched another probe to Mars to search for evidence of life. Nothing would guarantee NASA a much improved funding stream, probably in perpetuity, more than producing strong evidence that we are not alone in the universe.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 9, 2007 10:06:27 GMT -4
Although I am new to the forum, I did a quick search to see if anyone has posted this idea and came up with no comparable threads... we should have the technological capacity to take a high resolution of the alleged flag on the moon... This idea has been covered over and over before on this board and others. Some links: 1. Smart 12. Flag Waving on the Moon3. 41% say it's a hoaxFrom the last link: 8 Aug, 2005, 4:42am, margamatix wrote: a telescope capable of reading a car number plate would be able to see... the Stars and Stripes, which is 4 feet long.Margamatix, you compel me to wonder, do you actually think about such statements before making them? After 800+ weeks of being blasted by steady, unfiltered sunlight, what condition do you think a lightweight nylon flag would be in? I'd suggest that if at all visible it's a small line of white powder lying on the lunar surface. But even if all of the flags were still standing, and there's strong evidence that the Apollo 11 flag was blasted over by the ascent engine, what would they look like from here? Lets assume that the flagstaffs are all standing vertically and the flags hanging vertically. From Earth we would be viewing them from above, but, depending on their exact locations, they would be "leaning over" a little -- up to 30 degrees -- away from our line of sight instead of their tops pointing directly at us. Put another way, they wouldn't be presenting much of a face to us. Do you still believe that if the technology was available we could see a Stars and Stripes standing on the moon from Earth? This site, stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html#apolloshows photos of lunar modules on the moon from lunar orbit, and the link provided by Tanalia in post 12 covers the mathematics and practicalities of an earth-based telescope sighting the landing sites. But if hoax-believers can't believe, 1. Many minutes of black-and-white TV images of the flag being raised and of the flag itself; 2. 16mm colour film of the same; 3. Many colour photos that include the flag, with and without an astronaut in the picture, and taken from many different positions; 4. A still photo which shows a change in the position of the flag after the LM's thrusters were test-fired; 5. All the associated audio in which people refer to the flag; 6. The transcripts of that audio; 7. The post-landing discussions of the flag; 8. The transcripts of the same; 9. And the testimony of the astronauts who were there (and all of the above is for Apollo 11 only); then why would they believe any modern photo that is taken by anybody or anything?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 9, 2007 10:54:39 GMT -4
jhm69, welcome to the board. As you can see, no telescope currently in existence can resolve Apollo artifacts. The only way to do that is to send an imager to the Moon (like Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) or to use a large interferometric array of really big Earthbound telescopes (I believe this sort of thing is being worked on).
But, given that any such image would be in electronic form as soon as it hit the telescope's camera, why would hoax-believers simply not claim that it had been fudged?
Also, would you mind chiming in on the "Lurkers and Viewers" thread with your opinion? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 9, 2007 16:05:53 GMT -4
Lots of reasonable people are surprised to learn that telescopes can't see the lunar landers etc. already. Yes, I think it's quite likely that we'll have aerial images of the landing sites within our lifetimes, but we don't have them now.
But it's vital not to get caught up in the conspiracist rhetoric that surrounds this issue. Conspiracists belabor the photography of Apollo remains for a number of reasons.
Focusing (pun intended) on direct verification implies that only that kind of evidence would decide the question conclusively. It gives conspiracists an excuse to ignore the mountain of other evidence, because they're not competent or willing to address it. The so-called bellwether argument enables the classic circularity. The conspiracist wants you to draw the conclusion hastily so that he can use the conclusion to refute on a technicality evidence he cannot address directly in his claim. So having convinced you, for example, that the Apollo missions "must" have been fake because no one can get through the radiation, he can then say that the moon rocks therefore "must" have been faked "somehow" because fake missions can't bring back real moon rocks. Even if he has no idea whether moon rocks can be faked, he gets you to believe that "somehow" they must have been. In the real world, that would be a big hole in the theory.
An unanswered bellwether lets the conspiracist portray himself as rational. If he says that a certain single point of evidence will answer the question conclusively for all time, and it hasn't been provided, then he can say he's suspending judgment waiting for that one conclusive bit. It doesn't matter to him that every single bit of evidence that is available disagrees with his belief. All that evidence is inferior and inconclusive, and his belief is still "possible" so long as that one arbitrarily-selected bit of evidence is outstanding.
But it doesn't stop there. Not only does he get to pretend he's thinking rationally, he gets to speculate all the nefarious motives behind why the bellwether remains unanswered. He begs questions of how easy it would be to do, and what a boon to science it would be, or how great life would be to have that "nagging" question answered once and for all answered, even if he's the only person who sees a controversy. And to any of the real reasons why his scenario isn't acted on (cost, lack of other need, lack of interest), he can respond, "How convenient."
Hidden in all this is the truth Sts60 has expressed: the nature of this evidence, if provided, would be no different than that which conspiracists have already rejected: photographs transmitted in digital form, curated by the Powers That Be. The conspiracy theorists already have a well-established handwaving framework for dismissing or challenging this sort of evidence. We have absolutely no faith any such evidence will be taken at face value.
We know this because on a few occasions conspiracists have said they'd change their minds if such-and-such evidence existed, erroneously believing that it didn't. When their bluff is called, it's amusing to see how fast those goalposts shift. It's pretty clear they're not interested in actual proof but only the appearance of reasonableness.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Aug 9, 2007 16:39:41 GMT -4
When their bluff is called, it's amusing to see how fast those goalposts shift. It's pretty clear they're not interested in actual proof but only the appearance of reasonableness.
Yeah, like "other than Van Allen," ;D
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 9, 2007 16:42:28 GMT -4
If someone said they had been to the top of Mt. Everest and planted a flag there, and they had the equipment they had used and brought back, and recipts and invoices for all the travel they did to get there, and they had photos of themselves at the top, and rocks they had brought back with them, and the people they said they climbed with all confirmed that they had gone to the top, would you have to go to the top of Everest yourself and find the flag in order to believe them? Or would it but simpler to accept their story that yes, they did in fact climb Mt. Everest?
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Aug 9, 2007 17:12:42 GMT -4
The relevance, is that I'd like to compare the level of proof you have accepted for extraterrestrial space craft with the level of proof you demand for Apollo. ^^ very interesting point there, will remember that one for future reference ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 9, 2007 19:24:15 GMT -4
Cavorite, aren't you looking at the wrong sky? The Southern Cross can't exist because I don't see it, but now that I think of it I'm going to install an Astronomy program and view the sky from Australia. Then I guess I'll have to believe it.
You Aussies are all over the place here I swear!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 9, 2007 20:04:10 GMT -4
Yeah, running the Northern Hemisphere ones with the monitor upside down doesn't work.
|
|