41% say it's a hoax.

[PhantomWolf]

margamatix said:

The next leap forward will be the development of a telescope which would clearly show any remains from any moon landing, but no-one seems to be in a hurry to develop one, despite the apparent ease of doing such a thing.

ROFL. You do realise how big a telescope that could see that would have to be? The biggest we have now can resolve to about 90 meters per pixel on the moon's surface. Now think about how much bigger it'd have to be to to resolve well enough to see the objects well enough to identify them in on image (at least 10-15 pixels across)

[margamatix]

Right. So it would be easier to send two people to the surface of the Moon in 1969 than to build a telescope that could see the surface of the Moon in 2005?

ROFL!

[PhantomWolf]

margamatix said:

Right. So it would be easier to send two people to the surface of the Moon in 1969 than to build a telescope that could see the surface of the Moon in 2005?

ROFL!

I can see the surface of the moon without a telescope.

I guess that now we can add optics to something you don't understand.

Here's a simple version of it. The bigger the area that the telescope covers, the more light it gathers and so the better the resolution. There is a neat little formula that I won't bore you with that relates the radius of the collector with the angle of resolution. For the best telescopes we have, that works out at round 90m when applied to the Moon's surface. That is with the best we have, the Keck telescopes in Hawaii and the Hubble.

To see the flag well you'd need around 0.1m per pixel, or a resolution of 900 times that of the Hubble. That means that the area of the telescope would need to be round 900 times the size of our biggest telescopes. Does that sort of help you to understand why it's unlikely to be done in the short term?

[TaeKwonDan]

margamatix said:

Right. So it would be easier to send two people to the surface of the Moon in 1969 than to build a telescope that could see the surface of the Moon in 2005?

ROFL!

I'll take doesn't understand basic principles of optics for $800 Alex.

[Bob B.]

margamatix said:

The next leap forward will be the development of a telescope which would clearly show any remains from any moon landing, but no-one seems to be in a hurry to develop one, despite the apparent ease of doing such a thing.

Are you talking about a telescope that can see the remains from Earth? If so, do you have any idea how big that telescope would have to be? You seem to think it is some simple chore to build such an instrument, but you are just making another assumption like you've been doing all along.

The LM's descent stage is 4.3 m across, so you'd probably need at least 2 m resolution to be able to make it out in an image. Since the Moon is about 384,400 km away, you would need an angular resolution of about 0.00107 arcseconds. To obtain this theoretical resolution we need a telescope with a diameter of at least 108 meters. And to compensate for the blurring effects of the atmosphere we would need to either make it even bigger than this or place it in orbit. The largest ground-based telescope currently in existence is 10 m in diameter and the Hubble Space Telescope is only 2.4 m.

Do you still think building such an instrument is easy? Moreover, do you think it is cheap? Remember that all these little projects have to be funded.

Now if you are talking about placing a telescope with sufficient resolution into lunar orbit, well then you only have to wait until 2008. NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbit will have 1/2-meter resolution. Also check out the following:

science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm

[Data Cable]

margamatix said:

...but no-one seems to be in a hurry to develop one, despite the apparent ease of doing such a thing.

What has made this supposed "ease" so apparent to you?

[skinbath]

margamatix said:

Right. So it would be easier to send two people to the surface of the Moon in 1969 than to build a telescope that could see the surface of the Moon in 2005?

ROFL!

Margamatix; There`s a lot of convoluted reasoning going on here.For example,were your wish to be granted,you`d very likely reply that it was all another hoax and so there`s really no allaying your doubts.

Your reasoning appears to go as follows;
I`ve taken a look at the website you offered of your truck driving trips to Russia etc.On one page you say that you had to light a fire under your fuel tank due to fuel waxing.I then reply to you that this is plainly ridiculous as fuel and fire DO NOT MIX.You then reply with the reasons and various ways in which it is possible to do so,but I just maintain my position and assumption that it`s not possible ( as you would`ve blown yourself sky high )and therefore you must be lying.This would be unreasonable thinking on my part.

Your thinking is unreasonable,

[Sticks]

margamatix said:

The next leap forward will be the development of a telescope which would clearly show any remains from any moon landing, but no-one seems to be in a hurry to develop one, despite the apparent ease of doing such a thing.

Instead the astronomers just fire lasers at the laser reflectors left by the Apollo Astronauts that allows them to measure the Earth - Moon distance.

[sts60]

Right. So it would be easier to send two people to the surface of the Moon in 1969 than to build a telescope that could see the surface of the Moon in 2005?

First you say it's "easy" to build a telescope to resolve Apollo landing artifacts. You have no idea what is required to do so, and don't appear to be interested in finding out what would be required. You are simply wrong in such your claim, but I hold no hope that you'll acknowledge that fact, or even lift a finger to find out just how hard it would be.

Of course, the whole telescope claim is simply an empty rhetorical exercise anyway; your mind is made up, and if someone showed you an image from such a telescope, you'd simply say it was faked.

Then you talk about "seeing the surface of the Moon". Of course, you can do that with your own eyes. But assuming you mean "resolve Apollo artifacts on the Moon", well, tell me: can you imagine requesting billions of dollars of funding for a telescope to prove Apollo was real? You'd be laughed out of a job.

Then you draw a pointless comparison between the degree of difficulty between building such an instrument now and that of manned lunar landings then - about neither of which you have any idea. That misses the point entirely anway. I must remind you of the words of President Kennedy at Rice University (my alma mater!) in Houston back in 1962:

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do all the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because only that endeavor will serve to organize and to measure the best of our energies and our skills."

[margamatix]

sts60 said:

First you say it's "easy" to build a telescope to resolve Apollo landing artifacts.

No I don't. Again you have deliberately falsified something I said because the falsified version appears to make my case weaker.

I said it would be easier to build a telescope capable of viewing objects on the moon than it would be to transport two human beings there and bring them back again.

[papageno]

margamatix said:

sts60 said:

First you say it's "easy" to build a telescope to resolve Apollo landing artifacts.

No I don't. Again you have deliberately falsified something I said because the falsified version appears to make my case weaker.

I said it would be easier to build a telescope capable of viewing objects on the moon than it would be to transport two human beings there and bring them back again.

margamatix said:

The next leap forward will be the development of a telescope which would clearly show any remains from any moon landing, but no-one seems to be in a hurry to develop one, despite the apparent ease of doing such a thing.

(bolding mine)

Where exactly do you say that it is easier?
You said "apparent ease".



EDIT to add proper quoting.

[sts60]

He's right, margamatix. You did say a telescope capable of imaging Apollo artifacts could be built with "apparent ease". If that doesn't mean you think it's "easy", well, you're using a truly different version of English than I am - even allowing for differences between British and U.S. versions.

As for me misrepresenting you elsewhere, I haven't noticed any other complaints from you yet. You'll need to be more specific.

In any case, you have yet to explain why anyone should actually spend a lot of money to "prove" a matter of historical record in that way. Especially when any images from such a telescope would most likely be dismissed as "made-up".

Also, your point about such a telescope being "easier" than Apollo is still irrelevant. The point of Apollo was to send men to the Moon and bring them back, which was of course hard to do.

Furthermore, you have no idea just what is required to build such a telescope, or how much it would cost. Your "apparent ease" is based on nothing but your own opinion, and what you've picked up from conspiracy sites.

Finally, you have yet to explain why you take the word of a repeat liar like Bart Sibrel, who charges money to show out-of-context snippets of footage he claims as "exclusive" but which has been in the public domain for many years, who was fired from his job for lying about his background, and who we have shown you is incompetent to understand the engineering or science of Apollo - but refuse to examine the evidence we've shown you, for free.

[Bob B.]

papageno said:

margamatix said:

The next leap forward will be the development of a telescope which would clearly show any remains from any moon landing, but no-one seems to be in a hurry to develop one, despite the apparent ease of doing such a thing.

(bolding mine)

Where exactly do you say that it is easier?
You said "apparent ease".

I have to agree with papageno; I think the intent of your original comment is quite obvious. You wrote "despite the apparent ease of doing such a thing" where "such a thing" refers to "the development of a telescope which would clearly show any remains from any moon landing". I don't see how this can be interpreted in any way other than to say it should be easy to build a telescope capable of showing the remains of the moon-landings.

[sts60]

If that wasn't clear enough, let me state it clearly - I'm asking you to stand and deliver on some of your claims, rather than coughing up a "new" one. We've spent a lot of time answering your posts with actual details, addressing your actual claims. When will you return the favor? (Or since you seem to be British - the favour?)

[margamatix]

I do examine all the evidence you show me and I am grateful to everyone for the time taken in replying.

Everything I say on here is "opinion only". I do not pretend to have proven my case- it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as we all know.

But I am not "trolling". I am not simply here to aggravate people. I believe we did not land on the Moon. The most I have been offered here is proof that we could have landed on the Moon. And I don't even accept that.

Common sense dictates that it would be easier to build a telescope capable of examining the surface of the Moon than it would be to send a manned craft there. Human beings are the most fragile and delicate machines imaginable, capable of survival in only the tiniest window of environment.

I know that Hubble cannot clearly see the Moon, but this is simply because it was designed to view objects which are much further away than the moon. Had it been differently designed, it could have.


Thanks to everybody for the answers by the way- In another place, I am debating with a MD and he tells me that I am wrong "because I have seen the remains on the Moon through a telescope"