|
Post by capricorn1 on Aug 21, 2011 18:59:26 GMT -4
from the FAQs page........
Q: What will it take to convince Jarrah that the moon landings were real? A: As stated above, the VLT has the perfect resolving capabilities to see the artefacts that NASA claims is on the surface. He will accept a view through a ground-based optical telescope as proof [Fig-48].
How is that possible?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Aug 21, 2011 19:49:47 GMT -4
from the FAQs page........ Q: What will it take to convince Jarrah that the moon landings were real? A: As stated above, the VLT has the perfect resolving capabilities to see the artefacts that NASA claims is on the surface. He will accept a view through a ground-based optical telescope as proof [Fig-48]. How is that possible? He doesn't realize (or doesn't care) that the "possible" resolution of the VLT is not in the visual range.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 22, 2011 2:04:43 GMT -4
Interesting but wonder if this is his attempt at publishing to hold it up when challenged. How long before it is altered or gone?
Interesting wording that appears to be set in such a way to convey training and knowledge.
eg
"If Jarrah picks up a rock from the moon to analyse in a lab and then send up a probe to the moon to kick up plumes of dust for analysis via radio telescope, he expects to find the same chemical signatures and mineralogy."
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 23, 2011 11:37:23 GMT -4
"If Jarrah picks up a rock from the moon to analyse in a lab and then send up a probe to the moon to kick up plumes of dust for analysis via radio telescope, he expects to find the same chemical signatures and mineralogy." This betrays the fallacious expectation of a (literally) monolithic lunar surface.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 23, 2011 16:39:50 GMT -4
from the FAQs page........ Q: What will it take to convince Jarrah that the moon landings were real? A: As stated above, the VLT has the perfect resolving capabilities to see the artefacts that NASA claims is on the surface. He will accept a view through a ground-based optical telescope as proof [Fig-48]. How is that possible? It's possible because Jarrah has MATH on his side!!!
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Aug 23, 2011 19:38:17 GMT -4
from the FAQs page........ Q: What will it take to convince Jarrah that the moon landings were real? A: As stated above, the VLT has the perfect resolving capabilities to see the artefacts that NASA claims is on the surface. He will accept a view through a ground-based optical telescope as proof [Fig-48]. How is that possible? It's possible because Jarrah has MATH on his side!!! I'm still none the wiser.....it does appear that the VLT could pick up images from Apollo.....can't it?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 23, 2011 21:31:47 GMT -4
It's possible because Jarrah has MATH on his side!!! I'm still none the wiser.....it does appear that the VLT could pick up images from Apollo.....can't it? In theory yes, in practice, no. The issue is that the technology is based about interrupting data from a main telescope and several out-lying scopes, then calculating the images based on their results. Because of the way it calculates the image, those results are at their best when looking at bright objects (stars, galaxies, planets, etc) against a dark background (space.) When you are looking for the Apollo Artifacts on the lunar surface you are looking at bright objects against a very bright object and they tend to get lost in all that bright. Here's a link on how they work
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 24, 2011 9:24:24 GMT -4
Maybe he is going to ask the VLT and the Dr he quotes...
What am I saying.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 24, 2011 10:08:44 GMT -4
Given that he doubled a number by multiplying it by 1.5 and rectified his mistake by showing that 1 =1, I think it is fair to say that he-who-should-not-be-named eliminated himself as a commentator or expert on science. There is no more debate with him. He clearly does not want to defend his work in moderated debate or by viva voce. The bottom line is that the guy is an rambling bafoon who has discredited himself numerous times.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 24, 2011 11:44:22 GMT -4
those results are at their best when looking at bright objects (stars, galaxies, planets, etc) against a dark background (space.)That's not just a practical limitation but really a property of the Dawes and Rayleigh models of diffraction. In any optical system the practical acuity is less than the theoretical, due to flaws in materials and workmanship. And in any deconvolution or stacking exercise, the practical results are less than the theoretical due to noise and scatter. When you stack based on Dawes/Rayleigh mathematics, you can't ignore the assumptions that those methods are based on: namely a strong, relatively uncorrupted "signal" in the form of a cleanly diffracted point. The farther you depart from that cleanliness, the less useful are your results. When you are looking for the Apollo Artifacts on the lunar surface you are looking at bright objects against a very bright object and they tend to get lost in all that bright.Yes, which is to say the signal of interest does not rise significantly above the level of other intervening signals. Dawes/Rayleigh methods require a strong peak in the signal. And the background of the lunar surface provides many points of convolution that will wreak havoc with diffraction-based stacking algorithms. Interesting that our friend dismisses as "fakes" images that are taken with a system known to have the ability to do so, and accepts as genuine the attempts to image it with a different system whose capability is less sure -- but only when it continues to fail.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 24, 2011 12:18:54 GMT -4
Interesting that our friend dismisses as "fakes" images that are taken with a system known to have the ability to do so, and accepts as genuine the attempts to image it with a different system whose capability is less sure -- but only when it continues to fail. Interesting, but not surprising. The HBs primary interest is to keep the hoax theory going. Without it they have no method of making money or cannot seek their Andy Warhol moment. Our friend's actions are dishonest, yet he pays no regard for those he slanders and vilifies. I find his modus operandi offensive now.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 25, 2011 3:32:24 GMT -4
Off topic, but it was fun that Neil Armstrong had a little dig at the HBs last night when speaking at the Sydney Convention Centre. He was introducing the 16mm landing clip, which was compared to the montage of LRO images, side by side and from the same viewpoints. He commented upon the images showing the LM descent stage, and said that the LRO images should be proof enough to anyone that we went to the Moon, but you know these conspiracy believers.....
The place erupted in laughter.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 25, 2011 3:43:00 GMT -4
Off topic, but it was fun that Neil Armstrong had a little dig at the HBs last night when speaking at the Sydney Convention Centre. What, you mean the same Neil Armstrong that never speaks in public out of shame for the lie he has to protect? That Neil Armstrong? I wish I had been there to see Neil rip on the crazies. Now that would have been funny.
|
|
|
Post by kaleljordankent on Aug 25, 2011 4:40:03 GMT -4
Remember the time he used ascent footage to "prove" that astronaut footpaths imaged by LRO were "faked"? LOL!
Greetings All. I'm new here, but some know me from Youtube. If I may be allowed to indulge in the off topic topic...May I offer what may be one of the earliest "proofs" from the very first landing.
A couple hours after he took his first giant step on the moon, Neil took a giant leap back into the LM. I see no wires, so if it was filmed on Earth that Armstrong guy is Superman.
All the Best, KJK
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 25, 2011 4:55:42 GMT -4
Remember the time he used ascent footage to "prove" that astronaut footpaths imaged by LRO were "faked"? LOL! Yes, our friend does enjoy circular reasoning. It reminds me of the times when I have carried out some disgusting proof in physics, and substituted a new term to reduce variables. Forgetting where I am with the proof, I forget that I have already used the expression I am substituing previously in the proof. The terms fall out rapidly, and it all looks goods, until one is left with 1 = 1. Damn that circular reasoning.
|
|