|
Post by ouloncollouphid on Aug 7, 2005 10:18:20 GMT -4
Dear oh dear. I'd love to stick up for my fellow-countryman but his pig-headed refusal to look facts in the face make it impossible, I'm afraid.
I don't really have anything intelligent to add to the debate really (Sorry!) , as the regulars have done an exemplary job of demolishing Margamatix's shaky case already.
But hats off to him for sticking around, although he does seem determined to be offended and insulted - (and gets even twitchier when everyone refuses to call him 'delusional' or a loony.)
Despite his flaws, he's the nearest think I've seen on the web to a rational person supporting the Hoax Conspiracy Fantasies. Even if he does come out with IDW-isms occasionally, eg "It didn't happen, and time will prove me right."
While I'm here, thanks to Jay and Bob and the other regulars for their insights and superb rhetorical and analytical skills in exposing the weaknesses of the various hoax beliefs. I first discovered this site after a drunken conversation (inspired by REM's 'Man on the Moon'). I found I couldn't counter the nonsense about photographs and radiation and found myself with doubts about it all.
Thankfully, Clavius and Bad Astronomy et al have put my mind at ease over the whole issue and now I'm fully armed in the event of a repeat discussion!
Right, I'm finished. Blimey, for someone with nothing to say, I do go on, don't I?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 7, 2005 10:32:41 GMT -4
Blimey, for someone with nothing to say, I do go on, don't I? Well, at least we can agree on something.
|
|
|
Post by ouloncollouphid on Aug 7, 2005 10:43:10 GMT -4
Well, I'm pleased to meet you too.
By the way, do you still think it's easy to build an 108 metre reflector telescope? And get funding for it?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 7, 2005 10:51:37 GMT -4
I see from another thread (VLT) and from other information I have read, that such a thing is already under development so somebody must consider it a realistically practical proposition.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 7, 2005 10:58:30 GMT -4
I see from another thread (VLT) and from other information I have read, that such a thing is already under development so somebody must consider it a realistically practical proposition. Hey, margamatix, I started the VLT thread because it has the ability to take hi-res images of the landing sites. Dr. Richard West from an article in 2002, and Dr. David Darling, from an article on his website this year, both state it can be done. Dr. Darling says that if an automobile were on the moon, the VLT could read its license plate!
|
|
|
Post by ouloncollouphid on Aug 7, 2005 11:00:14 GMT -4
I see from another thread (VLT) and from other information I have read, that such a thing is already under development so somebody must consider it a realistically practical proposition. "The ESO Very Large Telescope will consist of four 8-meter telescopes which can work independently or in combined mode. In this latter mode the VLT provides the total light collecting power of a 16 meter single telescope, making it the largest optical telescope in the world." Not quite the same, is it?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 7, 2005 11:42:37 GMT -4
Not quite the same, is it? Can I firstly direct you to this quote, by turbonium and taken from his thread? Incidentally, there, rather than here, might be the place for further discussion... "But, according to Dr. David Darling, as I also quoted earlier, the VLT is capable of "giving a picture as sharp as if it had come from a single telescope 200 m across. If there were cars on the Moon, the Very Large Telescope would be able to read their number plates." Now, I might not be the world's leading expert on telescopes, but even I could tell you that a telescope capable of reading a car number plate would be able to see the lunar rover, which is 10 feet long, and the Stars and Stripes, which is 4 feet long.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 7, 2005 12:11:57 GMT -4
"The ESO Very Large Telescope will consist of four 8-meter telescopes which can work independently or in combined mode. In this latter mode the VLT provides the total light collecting power of a 16 meter single telescope, making it the largest optical telescope in the world." Not quite the same, is it? Welcome to the board, ouloncollouphid. The light gathering ability of four 8 m telescopes is no more than a single 16 m telescope, but by spacing the telescopes far apart and combining the images you can gain the resolution of a single telescope equivalent to the distance between the telescopes. I’m not real sure how it works but it has something to do with the interference phenomenon of electromagnetic waves, thus the device is called an interferometer. Interferometers in radio wavelengths have been around for a long time. However, the shorter the wavelength the more difficult it is to get an interferometer to work. The alignment of the telescopes has to be perfect, and when dealing with short wavelengths the margin for error is extremely small. This is why interferometry is so much more challenging of a problem to accomplish in visible light.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 7, 2005 12:57:26 GMT -4
Not quite the same, is it? Can I firstly direct you to this quote, by turbonium and taken from his thread? Incidentally, there, rather than here, might be the place for further discussion... "But, according to Dr. David Darling, as I also quoted earlier, the VLT is capable of "giving a picture as sharp as if it had come from a single telescope 200 m across. If there were cars on the Moon, the Very Large Telescope would be able to read their number plates." Now, I might not be the world's leading expert on telescopes, but even I could tell you that a telescope capable of reading a car number plate would be able to see the lunar rover, which is 10 feet long, and the Stars and Stripes, which is 4 feet long. Reading Turbonium’s post will not increase you knowledge and quoting him will not increase your credibility. Rather why don’t you give us some first principles as to why this should be true? Well I can’t do it either, so I pay attention to those who can and ignore people that take press reports and conspiracy web sites as quality sources of the truth.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 7, 2005 14:54:52 GMT -4
the regulars have done an exemplary job of demolishing Margamatix's shaky case already. But hats off to him for sticking around, although he does seem determined to be offended and insulted - (and gets even twitchier when everyone refuses to call him 'delusional' or a loony.) I am not determined to be offended or insulted, and have not been treated in the way you describe by anybody on this forum. Without exception, people have been kind, patient and courteous, and have spent a lot of time putting the case for the moon landings. I still don't believe it happened, but I believe I have found the right place to discuss that belief and decent people to discuss it with. So, with the permission of the Administrator I shall continue to air that belief. Finally, can i just join the others in welcoming you to the forum.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 7, 2005 16:30:17 GMT -4
Reading Turbonium’s post will not increase you knowledge and quoting him will not increase your credibility. Rather why don’t you give us some first principles as to why this should be true? Well I can’t do it either, so I pay attention to those who can and ignore people that take press reports and conspiracy web sites as quality sources of the truth. margamatix isn't quoting me, he's quoting Dr. Darling. And it is taken from Darling's own website - which you are then saying here must not be a quality source of the truth. If anything, you have just shown that your postings should be ignored, if you don't even have the ability to check out what my sources actually are, but instead proceed to make false accusations of non-credible sources.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 7, 2005 23:54:24 GMT -4
Reading Turbonium’s post will not increase you knowledge and quoting him will not increase your credibility. Rather why don’t you give us some first principles as to why this should be true? Well I can’t do it either, so I pay attention to those who can and ignore people that take press reports and conspiracy web sites as quality sources of the truth. margamatix isn't quoting me, he's quoting Dr. Darling. And it is taken from Darling's own website - which you are then saying here must not be a quality source of the truth. If anything, you have just shown that your postings should be ignored, if you don't even have the ability to check out what my sources actually are, but instead proceed to make false accusations of non-credible sources. We're not saying that at ll, we're pointing out that you are are quoting him out of context. There are a number of people very interested in Astronomy here, who have been waiting for the VLT and others to get up and fully running because of their abilities, not because they can look at the moon in detail, but because they 'll be providing stunning new information about the universe.While it hopefully will be able to study the moon in great detail, as of yet they don't have that working, and until they do, they just have 4 eight metre scopes, which are great and very powerful, but they aren't going to be able see what you keep quoting until they get the extra scopes required to run the system into place so they can combine them correctly. Once they do it'll be great, not because of the moon stuff, but because they'll be taking more excellent images of the universe and perhaps we won't suffer from the loss of the hubble quite as much. Note well the dates. The VLT won't be able to do what you keep saying until the end of next year! (assuming everything goes right) www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-06-05.html]Press release here
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 8, 2005 3:57:49 GMT -4
Now, I might not be the world's leading expert on telescopes, but even I could tell you that a telescope capable of reading a car number plate would be able to see the lunar rover, which is 10 feet long, and the Stars and Stripes, which is 4 feet long. A spy satellite in low Earth orbit is about 2000 times nearer its target than a telescope on Earth looking at the moon, so it can see an object 2000 times smaller. The cameras that have been flown in lunar orbit are much smaller than those in low Earth orbit, which is why the best Lunar Orbiter pictures of landed Surveyor probes just show a bright spot that casts a shadow.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 8, 2005 9:49:30 GMT -4
Very large baseline interferometry has been used in radio astronomy for a number of years. Bringing those techniques to the visible spectrum will like require several more years of experimentation and engineering.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 8, 2005 9:54:26 GMT -4
margamatix wrote Can I firstly direct you to this quote, by turbonium and taken from his thread? Incidentally, there, rather than here, might be the place for further discussion...
"But, according to Dr. David Darling, as I also quoted earlier, the VLT is capable of "giving a picture as sharp as if it had come from a single telescope 200 m across. If there were cars on the Moon, the Very Large Telescope would be able to read their number plates."
turbonium wrote margamatix isn't quoting me, he's quoting Dr. Darling.
Well turbonium, margamatix is quoting you quoting Darling. Margamatix seems to me like a reasonable guy who is trying to engage in a positive discussion. I was warning him away from putting much stock in your posts because of the of the frequent low quality of your sources (such as agendized conspiracy web sites) and the tendency to preferentially interpret others to match your point of view (such as the above). Though perhaps a fuller explanation and a few examples would have been in order.
Feel free to ignore my posts if you wish, they are offered only for those that find something interesting in what I have to say.
|
|