|
Post by sts60 on Aug 8, 2005 10:39:03 GMT -4
BTW, as Bob B. pointed out, an interferometric telescope may have the resolution of a single telescope with an XXXX-meter primary, but not the light-gathering power. So it can't see all the objects that the hypothetical giant single telescope could; its magnitude reach (how dim an object it can see) is constrained by the size of its component scopes' primaries.
Which doesn't really mean anything for such a bright object as a sunlit Moon. I just felt like making a rather pointless observation.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Aug 8, 2005 10:44:01 GMT -4
I just felt like making a rather pointless observation. LOL welcome to MY world.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 8, 2005 23:24:58 GMT -4
a telescope capable of reading a car number plate would be able to see... the Stars and Stripes, which is 4 feet long. Margamatix, you compel me to wonder, do you actually think about such statements before making them? After 800+ weeks of being blasted by steady, unfiltered sunlight, what condition do you think a lightweight nylon flag would be in? I'd suggest that if at all visible it's a small line of white powder lying on the lunar surface. But even if all of the flags were still standing, and there's strong evidence that the Apollo 11 flag was blasted over by the ascent engine, what would they look like from here? Lets assume that the flagstaffs are all standing vertically and the flags hanging vertically. From Earth we would be viewing them from above, but, depending on their exact locations, they would be "leaning over" a little -- up to 30 degrees -- away from our line of sight instead of their tops pointing directly at us. Put another way, they wouldn't be presenting much of a face to us. Do you still believe that if the technology was available we could see a Stars and Stripes standing on the moon from Earth?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 9, 2005 9:26:55 GMT -4
And that would be to ignore the simple fact that even if spy satellites in earth orbit can read the headlines on your newspaper, and even if the flags were still in pristine condition, there are two massive obstacles on using that technology to image the Apollo landing sites ...
* Those spy satellites would be useless in earth orbit, as the earth is only a matter of a few hundred miles below them, while the moon is a quarter of a million miles away.
* Spy satellites (as many have pointed out on several threads now) carry a great deal of mass in order to do the job that they do. Getting one of those into lunar orbit would require a huge and expensive undertaking on the part of NASA (or whoever). To what end ... to prove something that is already a matter of historical record.
Get a grip ..
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 9, 2005 10:39:20 GMT -4
Not to mention the hilarity of demading photographic evidence from the U.S. government to alleviate the suspicions regarding previouls photographic evidence offered by the U.S. government.
The notion that U.S. surveillance satellites should snap photos of the Apollo jetsam (even were that possible) in order to prove it's there doesn't seem to be a reasonable proposal of proof. It's proposed not because doing so would answer the question, but simply because it hasn't been done. Conspiracists contrive it so that they can argue there's still "key" proof out there, and in its absence they're still perfectly justified in having doubts. And since that condition can be perpetuated indefinitely, they never have to admit defeat. The most they'll ever have to admit is that "the jury's still out."
And in the innuendo aisle, we find the argument, "They have the ability to do it, so the fact that they haven't done it yet means they have something to hide -- there's no other explanation." Yeah, right. One of my computers could probably check the tax return of every single U.S. taxpayer in less than an hour. The fact that I haven't actually done that doesn't mean the IRS is funneling all the money to cover up cattle mutilations.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Aug 9, 2005 10:42:49 GMT -4
Hey hey! Just to let you all know, I still accept Apollo, but not because of cultural bias, political correctness or some majority vote, but because I've looked at the evidence and concluded such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 9, 2005 11:03:12 GMT -4
Excellent posts, Mr Gorsky, JayUtah and Glom. Stuff like that, along with all the wonderful things we learn, makes the hassles and tedium we sometimes go through on these boards all worthwhile. I just hope that some of the hoax-believers can recognise something in themselves among the marvellous humour. But I don't expect much....
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 9, 2005 14:11:00 GMT -4
a telescope capable of reading a car number plate would be able to see... the Stars and Stripes, which is 4 feet long. Margamatix, you compel me to wonder, do you actually think about such statements before making them? You seem to have edited something out of my quote- why is that?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 9, 2005 16:16:38 GMT -4
While waiting for Kiwi's response, I'm curious as to why you think it's significant.
Did his shortening your quote materially alter its meaning? 'Cuz I read the original and the shortened version to mean essentially the same thing (seeing small Apollo artifacts).
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 10, 2005 1:31:41 GMT -4
You seem to have edited something out of my quote- why is that? I don't seem to have editied something out of your quote, I have edited something out of your quote and included the ellipsis marks to indicate that I have. It's a perfectly legitimate practice that writers do all the time to exclude extraneous matter. I did it because the words "the lunar rover, which is 10 feet long," were irrelevant to the following discussion. It is bad form to shorten a quote without including the proper punctuation marks. They alert readers to the fact that there is a deliberate omission in case they may wish to check what the full quote says. Now that I've had the courtesy to answer your question, please do what you usually don't and answer mine.
|
|
|
Post by ouloncollouphid on Aug 10, 2005 14:39:00 GMT -4
You seem to have edited something out of my quote- why is that? I don't seem to have editied something out of your quote, I have edited something out of your quote and included the ellipsis marks to indicate that I have. It's a perfectly legitimate practice that writers do all the time to exclude extraneous matter. I did it because the words "the lunar rover, which is 10 feet long," were irrelevant to the following discussion. It is bad form to shorten a quote without including the proper punctuation marks. They alert readers to the fact that there is a deliberate omission in case they may wish to check what the full quote says. Now that I've had the courtesy to answer your question, please do what you usually don't and answer mine. I'm sure that Margamatix wasn't, in any way, trying to imply that you were somehow being devious while at the same time avoiding answering your question. That would be very cheap and I confidently anticipate full responses to evryone's queries on all his threads.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Aug 10, 2005 18:00:57 GMT -4
My irony detector's just blown a fuse ;D
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 10, 2005 22:46:19 GMT -4
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. Standard whitewashing of every source I link as being non-credible with no examples to support your view. That is, except claiming I distort quotes from "legit" sources, while I did no such thing, I just showed the actual quote as is.
Have you considered the possibility that a "conspiracy site" has an "agenda" that would actually be to expose a conspiracy? It's a method of discredting an entire source by simply saying "Oh, they obviously have an agenda - they hate the Government because they are accusing them of being involved in 9/11". Well, no kidding!
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 10, 2005 23:15:10 GMT -4
Have you considered the possibility that a "conspiracy site" has an "agenda" that would actually be to expose a conspiracy? And have you considered the possibility that the only agenda some conspiracy sites have is to separate gullible fools from their money? Take a look at some of your favourite "sources" and count how many books and/or videos they are trying to sell you.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 10, 2005 23:23:21 GMT -4
I agree that many sites are selling books & videos. I don't consider that in itself as proof of being a poor source for information. Many mainstream sites also do the same. It is entirely their right to do so, in a free society.
|
|