|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 9, 2010 5:00:24 GMT -4
But it's not close enough to see properly what it is; it's as if it's a few hundred feet below. It's actually a few tens of miles below, and at that distance that's just what you would expect to see from the optical systems on board the LRO. Which is very very likely. Jarrah White literally knows nothing about the reality of space travel, or indeed reality at all, and will never ever admit to the fact. He once claimed a video timecode showed it to ave been captured a full day after stills from it were published in a newspaper. He had miscounted the days (the timecode simply said it was the 178th day of the year or something like that, and he started with January 1st being the 0th day to arrive at the actual date that represented, so of course he was a day out!). When this was pointed out he went on at great length about his method being just as valid a count as any other. That just shows you how blinkered he is. Could be, could be. Is there any evidence that they actually are fake? It is not enough to idly speculate about what might be. Where does the available evidence point? Even if they did, they require the most powerful launchers just to get them into Earth orbit, never mind send them off to the Moon. Any idea how much extra effort that would take? Highly unlikely, and unconfirmed in any case. No there wasn't. LRO is doing just what NASA always said it would. If anyone else has been hyping up LRO then that is hardly NASA's responsibility to live up to, is it?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 9, 2010 5:01:33 GMT -4
I just question how and when they went, and who did go. Somebody could have left the reflectors there, yes. Why? What is your evidence that the record as stated is fraudulent, and what do you propose as an alternative?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 9, 2010 5:16:41 GMT -4
I've seen an LRO close-up showing its shape in a bit more detail. But it's not close enough to see properly what it is; it's as if it's a few hundred feet below. Even if Jarrah White is wrong about the photoshopping of the pics, the objects themselves might exist up there, but they could be fake, balsa-wood models or something. If the photograph isn't clear enough to conclusively determine that the object in question is indeed an authentic Apollo Lunar Module descent stage, how can it possibly be clear enough to determine that the construction material is balsa wood? Quick, what's the angular size of an automotive license plate as viewed from "low earth orbit?" What's the angular size of an LM descent stage as viewed from LRO's orbit? Furthermore, what's the mass of a "KH spy satellite" compared to that of LRO, and how much more expensive would it be to launch one from Earth to Lunar orbit? As for the retroreflectors: Objects can be placed on the moon like that without human hands. Just as they " can" be placed by invisible pink unicorns, but we have no evidence of that having taken place, either. "Somebody" other than the somebodies stated to have placed them according to the historical record? Don't speak too soon! "Discredit Apollo conspiracy theories" does not mean "provide irrefutable proof against." Those who refuse to be convinced by evidence, no matter what it is, will not be.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Apr 9, 2010 5:47:01 GMT -4
Balsa wood models of the Landers? Placed there by "somebody". Who? This will make a great Hollywood movie with Bruce Willis nailing together a Balsa Wood model of the landers then being rescued by Gerard Butler piloting a flying saucer when he accidentally puts a nail through his spacesuit. I wonder if he will do the dropping hammer and feather illusion as well.
Hagbard - How about the Kaguya terrain realisations? How did those naughty Japanese manage that trick? Maybe Hollywood can get Lucy Lui to play the evil Japanese trickster?
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Apr 9, 2010 5:59:17 GMT -4
It's a pity the CIA can't lend NASA one of the KH spy satelites that NASA so kindly launch for them! ;D Wrong agencies on both counts. The CIA might use their imagery, but the hardware is run by the National Reconnaisance Office. NASA had nothing to do with their launches - the KH-11 through to KH-13 series were all launched on Titan-IVs from Vandenberg Air Force Base.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Apr 9, 2010 12:52:41 GMT -4
Balsa wood models of the Landers? Placed there by "somebody". Who? More importantly, when? Balsa wood is not nearly as radiation-proof as the aluminium structures that were sent, so it would have to have been placed between the original landings and now to have survived, yet there is no record of any launches of vehicles large enough to enter Lunar orbit, nor is there any sign of whichever lander (robotic or otherwise) which was used to assemble the alleged decoys in place.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Apr 9, 2010 14:45:56 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 9, 2010 16:51:41 GMT -4
I thought there was only a single photo that shows the objects on the moon close enough for the footpads to be discerned.How many photos are required for authenticity and why? I've seen an LRO close-up showing its shape in a bit more detail. But it's not close enough to see properly what it is...It seems to be close enough for others to recognize it as an LM descent stage. Even if Jarrah White is wrong about the photoshopping of the pics...And what have you done personally to assure yourself that Jarrah White knows what he's talking about when speaking of digitally doctoring photographs? Or when speaking on any subject having to do with Apollo? Are you simply a Jarrah White fanboy? "Because Jarrah said so," is not an argument. ...the objects themselves might exist up there, but they could be fake, balsa-wood models or something.And what is your proof that they are something other than the remnants of Apollo spacecraft? Idly postulating farfetched alternatives while supplying no proof is not an argument either. It's just grasping at straws. It's a pity the CIA can't lend NASA one of the KH spy satelites that NASA so kindly launch for them!NASA no longer does that, nor has done so in decades. Further, there is no launch system currently in existence that can put a Keyhole satellite in lunar orbit. They can supposedly read a car number plate from low Earth orbit through the atmosphere.They cannot. In any case it is not possible to put on in lunar orbit, so forget it. White has a point, there was a lot of hype about the LRO that hasn't lived up.When Jarrah White actually demonstrates any understanding of some space program, then he can pass credible judgment. Until then he's just an uninformed guy who makes home movies at YouTube.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 9, 2010 17:05:21 GMT -4
I've addressed the LRO in the post above.Not to my satisfaction. You simply denied the existing evidence and speculated about how else it might have been done. If you argue that the LRO photos are fake, please prove it -- and with something more substantial than handwaving at some amateur video. If you argue that the LRO photos are of something other than the LM descent stages, footprints, etc. then please prove it -- again by something more substantial than someone else's speculation. As for the retroreflectors: Objects can be placed on the moon like that without human hands.That wasn't the question. Objects have been observed on the surface of the Moon within mere yards of the positions of the retroreflectors, whose positions have been documented for decades. Please explain how such precision could have been obtained. Are you aware of any other pinpoint unmanned planetary landings at all? I dispute your implication that precision unmanned landings are possible. Please substantiate your claim. I just question how and when they went, and who did go. Somebody could have left the reflectors there, yes.Then please explain the entirety of the evidence that manned missions to the Moon occurred in 1969-1972. If you claim other missions took place, please provide commensurately detailed and verifiable evidence for them. Sorry, this isn't simply a pick-and-choose conspiracy theory. You don't get to dance around the facts just so you can accuse NASA of something. You either have the goods right now, or you don't.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 9, 2010 19:20:48 GMT -4
I know, the true capabilties of spy satelites have never been published; they're Top Secret.The designs of earlier spy satellites such as the KH-4 are well published and from them we can infer the techniques and capabilities of newer systems. Further, it is not top secret what would be required to image license plates from orbit. Nor is it top secret what are the capabilities and limitations of the fleet of available launch vehicles. It takes only a suitable education to infer that a significant gap exists between what is required and what is available. You can keep secret the details of a design, but you can't keep secret the laws of nature. I'm sure the NRO would like very much for the enemies of the U.S. to believe that nothing escapes their scrutiny. Exaggerating one's detection and interdiction capability has been part of the warmaker's arsenal since Sun Tzu. The capabilities of the LRO are not though.Quite true; and the images we have received are consistent with an informed understanding of those capabilities. Maybe you should spend more time listening to scientists and engineers and less time listening to kids who hang out at YouTube and make home movies. Don't speak too soon! Yes, I'm sure the authors of that page were blissfully unaware of the straws that hoax believers will grasp at rather than let go of their cherished beliefs. Since there is a neverending stream of unfounded speculation, there will be a neverending stream of idiotic hoax theories. As long as one doesn't feel himself bound by fact, one can imagine whatever he wants.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 9, 2010 21:14:49 GMT -4
"Because Jarrah said so," is not an argument. I'd say that it is, but a really bad one. It is not a logically valid argument, nor is it an argument which carries weight to anyone paying attention to the world outside Jarrah's YouTube channel, but it is a point brought up to defend a proposition and therefore an argument. Then again, Jarrah's isn't generally an argument; it's contradiction. It's the automatic gainsaying of anything that any real scientist or historian says which goes against his worldview. Oh, and of course the obvious fact that your only interest in life is ruining his, but that goes without saying!
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Apr 10, 2010 0:21:39 GMT -4
... isn't generally an argument; it's contradiction. It's the automatic gainsaying... [pythonesque] 'Tisn't! 'Tis so! [/pythonesque]
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 10, 2010 12:52:18 GMT -4
[pythonesque] 'Tisn't! 'Tis so! [/pythonesque] Oh that was never five minutes.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 10, 2010 13:10:11 GMT -4
Look, I don't want to argue about this!
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Apr 10, 2010 17:19:18 GMT -4
I'm afraid it was.....
Air cadets sketch night 19mpfghfg.
|
|