|
Post by supermeerkat on Feb 20, 2011 19:55:14 GMT -4
No, unless you have a 3.5 mile diameter telescope.A very interesting article that I've used to silence a particularly irritating co-worker. I'm sure most of the regulars round here have read it, but it might be helpful in this forum's fight against the HBs. www.rocketroberts.com/astro/flag_on_moon.htm
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Feb 20, 2011 20:21:37 GMT -4
Well there is also the slight problem that the flags will be nothing more than small piles of dust due to the exposure to unfiltered UV and solar radiation combined with the thermal cycling between the Lunar day and night. They were just thin nylon flags pretty much identical to the cheap ones you can purchase from a super market (which IIRC from the stories I have seen here pretty much how NASA is supposed to have got the ones that went to the Moon).
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Feb 20, 2011 20:34:02 GMT -4
. . . pretty much identical to the cheap ones you can purchase from a super market (which IIRC from the stories I have seen here pretty much how NASA is supposed to have got the ones that went to the Moon). I recall reading the same. (can't remember where, though )
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Feb 20, 2011 21:40:15 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Feb 21, 2011 16:05:26 GMT -4
No one back then could have imagined that anyone would ever question the moon landings, or that if they did they would get so much media attention. Head they known they would have attached a plow blade to a rover and marked out 'Apollo was here' in 100 metre high letters.
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Feb 21, 2011 17:13:41 GMT -4
That wouldn't work either. Those pesky remote controlled rovers! Ranb
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Feb 21, 2011 17:15:29 GMT -4
Was it not Kaysing who suggested that they should have set off a flare to prove they were there.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Feb 21, 2011 17:19:52 GMT -4
Well there is also the slight problem that the flags will be nothing more than small piles of dust due to the exposure to unfiltered UV and solar radiation combined with the thermal cycling between the Lunar day and night. Ka9q, I and others discussed this elsewhere. The flags would be toast after 40 years of the harsh lunar environment. If some nation were to send a robot to each of the sites, the 'non-appearance' of the flags would be the proof that the hoaxers would cling to. It will be another shifting of the goalposts. I'm afraid the die hards will go to their graves believing their own trumped up rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 21, 2011 18:45:37 GMT -4
Well sure the flags might not be there as such (I suspect that there is a slim chance the not white material might still be holding together against the lunar gravity) but the flag poles will be.
|
|
|
Post by talltom on Mar 30, 2011 5:05:40 GMT -4
Again we have people whom haven't any idea about the technology available. The Hubble Space Telescope could not even resolve a flag planted on the surface of the Moon. The reason is one of angular resolution. Yet they cannot even understand that terminology because they have not ever studied Optics. They cannot fathom what 240,000 miles distance actually is. They cannot fathom that the Apollo Spacecraft flew over FIVE TIMES as FAST as a SPEEDING BULLET.
Most people do not know that if you drop two objects with markedly different weights from the same height that they will strike the ground at the same time (in a vaccuum). If you demonstrate this to them with aerodynamically similar objects in the atmosphere they look at you AWESTRUCK!!! Try it!!! I do this simple trick and they are amazed. Most people have no understanding of the Laws of Motion.
That is the PROBLEM. How can you reason with people whom lack critical thinking skills? How can you reason with people whom lack a basic understanding of Mathematics and Physics?
You cannot. So, therefore, if you do attempt this task then understand that the task will be almost, if NOT, impossible.
To the people whom believe that the Moon Landings were a hoax...Before you attempt to convince me that it was a hoax...Please get a basic understanding of Physics and Math so we can talk on the same level. Because, if you lack a basic understanding of Mathematics, then you were not taught how to think logically. I am sorry that your teachers failed to instill the critical thinking process within your mind.
I am not lying to you when I tell you that it happpened. I have NOTHING TO GAIN by telling you that it happened. No one is paying me to write this. I am NOT GOING TO SELL MY SOUL by promoting a lie. (I am a believer in God. I can prove God through Mathematical REASONING to open minds.)
I know that most of you haven't an understanding of Mathematics and Physics. So trust me when I write that it happened because it did.
TallTom I Cor 13
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 30, 2011 5:18:12 GMT -4
I know that most of you haven't an understanding of Mathematics and Physics. So trust me when I write that it happened because it did. TallTom I Cor 13 I suggest that you read the board before casting these sort of assertions about. And BTW FYI, saying "trust me" is an appeal to authority, and in your case, and unestablished authority. Post like this against actual HBs and they'd eat you for breakfast.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Mar 30, 2011 9:14:27 GMT -4
The reason is one of angular resolution. Yet they cannot even understand that terminology because they have not ever studied Optics. They cannot fathom what 240,000 miles distance actually is. Nitpicking, but I think it's more an inability to understand the size of Hubble's other "targets"
|
|
|
Post by twik on Mar 30, 2011 11:14:49 GMT -4
I know that most of you haven't an understanding of Mathematics and Physics. So trust me when I write that it happened because it did. Really? You "know"? You haven't even taken the time to realize what sort of board you're posting on (hint - the name of the site isn't necessarily the belief of most posters). I'm not sure why I should trust someone who makes such vast assumptions on no evidentiary basis. I'm pretty sure that most people on this board know more about math and physics than you do (I'm not claiming that for myself, but for the general tenor of posters). Don't let your assumptions of your own mental superiority blind you to what can be learned from them. These are people who have actual credentials, and knowledge. They've done the research. I trust them because of that, not because they tell me to, while assuming I'm not bright enough to understand their mental processes. You may be a smart kid. But there are other smart people in the world. Hold off the rant, stop making assumptions before you gather your evidence, and you may be able to share your thoughts with people who you'd like to talk to.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 30, 2011 11:20:27 GMT -4
I think TallTom is under the impression there are more hoax believers here than there actually are. He doesn't realize that the majority of the people in this forum believe the landings really happened.
It's a common mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Mar 30, 2011 12:54:29 GMT -4
I think TallTom is under the impression there are more hoax believers here than there actually are. He doesn't realize that the majority of the people in this forum believe the landings really happened. It's a common mistake. Doesn't explain, or excuse, the pomposity. ;D
|
|