It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 93
29
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 05:13 PM

Given that the moon is around 400,000 kilometers (248,548 miles) away from the satellite, a quick calculation equates to a resolution of 80 meters on the moon.

thank you

you have just publiushed a rebuttal of your own claim

BRAVO

please look up what 80m resolution means - because it is clear that you have no idea

in short 80m resolution means that each pixel of a digitised image will have a radius of 40m

the maximum size of a piece of apollo hard ware is

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:13 AM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

Do you see the picture of those houses at the top?, how many feet (estimate for me will ya) above the ground do you think that picture is from? and I'll explain to you from that point on, scince you can't understand what I'm saying.

why do you need to know the distance , exact or estimated ?

it [ the distance ] is an irrelevance if only the distance is known

to make any sense of the distance it is vital that the effective focal lengh is also known

taking 10 seconds experimenting with a zoom / telephoto lens or vari power scope will tell you that

only parralax discreprancies will identify if tha given image was taken from a short diustance , with a short focal lengh or from a great distance with a coorespondingly longer focal lengh

is that clear ?

Now, do you see the house with the swimming pool, (Second Row of houses from the bottom row) look to the left of the swimming pool, do you see that dark greenish object ( probably a tree or bush) the LunarRover is a little smaller than that, so if this pic is from 500km away, at 500km away one can clearly see a non-Lunar object that could be zoomed in as much as one can BEFORE "BLURRAGE" starts to see it is the L.R. or some sort of NON-Lunar object left by the Apollo people, but the reason it's NEVER been done is because THEY WERE NEVER THEEEEERRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 04:11 AM
YASKY : why are you so loathe to address the issue of effective focal lenght , and keep babbling about distance only ?

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 11:07 AM

Now, do you see the house with the swimming pool, (Second Row of houses from the bottom row) look to the left of the swimming pool, do you see that dark greenish object ( probably a tree or bush) the LunarRover is a little smaller than that, so if this pic is from 500km away, at 500km away one can clearly see a non-Lunar object that could be zoomed in as much as one can BEFORE "BLURRAGE" starts to see it is the L.R. or some sort of NON-Lunar object left by the Apollo people, but the reason it's NEVER been done is because THEY WERE NEVER THEEEEERRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You do understand that moon is much, much further away than 500 km? That spatial resolution scales with distance? That diffraction limited optics is as good as you can get, and that the diffraction limit depends on aperture? that apertures are finite?

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:36 PM

Originally posted by disownedsky

Now, do you see the house with the swimming pool, (Second Row of houses from the bottom row) look to the left of the swimming pool, do you see that dark greenish object ( probably a tree or bush) the LunarRover is a little smaller than that, so if this pic is from 500km away, at 500km away one can clearly see a non-Lunar object that could be zoomed in as much as one can BEFORE "BLURRAGE" starts to see it is the L.R. or some sort of NON-Lunar object left by the Apollo people, but the reason it's NEVER been done is because THEY WERE NEVER THEEEEERRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You do understand I was talking about a Sat being 500km away from the moon and taking the images right you do know then an image of the L.R. would be available right
it may not be Crispy clear but you do know one could clearly tell it's a non-Lunar object right

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:44 PM

You do understand I was talking about a Sat being 500km away from the moon and taking the images right you do know then an image of the L.R. would be available right
it may not be Crispy clear but you do know one could clearly tell it's a non-Lunar object right
And you do understand that it would cost tens of millions of dollars to construct a such a satellite and put it in orbit around the Moon, right? Kind of a high price to pay for getting photos that people will just say are doctored anyway.

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 04:37 PM

Originally posted by nataylorAnd you do understand that it would cost tens of millions of dollars to construct a such a satellite and put it in orbit around the Moon, right? Kind of a high price to pay for getting photos that people will just say are doctored anyway.

Tens of millions would be a good price, but with some inevitable proportion of the NASA bureacracy along for the ride - it's more.

LRO is in progress, and should get very good resolution. Last I checked, they were lookinig at a 2008 launch. Since the moon has no significant atmosphere (really!) , you can fly quite close to the surface.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by disownedsky]

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:06 PM

Originally posted by disownedsky

Originally posted by nataylorAnd you do understand that it would cost tens of millions of dollars to construct a such a satellite and put it in orbit around the Moon, right? Kind of a high price to pay for getting photos that people will just say are doctored anyway.

Tens of millions would be a good price, but with some inevitable proportion of the NASA bureacracy along for the ride - it's more.

LRO is in progress, and should get very good resolution. Last I checked, they were lookinig at a 2008 launch. Since the moon has no significant atmosphere (really!) , you can fly quite close to the surface.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by disownedsky]
Naaahhh the reason they've never did it was because they were not there.
BTW if it's so expensive why are they going in 2008/2009 it's cheaper to fly a Sat over there and take images from the Apollo Landings then what theywant to do in 2008/2009

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:10 PM

you constantly remind me of what Einstein allegedly said about infinity
!

Regards
yf

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:15 PM

...BTW if it's so expensive why are they going in 2008/2009 it's cheaper to fly a Sat over there and take images from the Apollo Landings then what they want to do in 2008/2009...

Are you talking about flying an existing spy satellite from Earth orbit over to the moon? I surely hope I misunderstood what you are saying.

Besides, the LRO will be able to do much more science than a spy satellite could possibly do. Even if a spy satellite is cheaper (and I don't know if that's true), comparing the capabilities of each spacecraft would be like comparing apples and oranges. So again, I say why would the CIA bother to do something that is so totally irrelevant to their mission like waste one of their spy satellites by giving it to NASA to look at the Moon.

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

...BTW if it's so expensive why are they going in 2008/2009 it's cheaper to fly a Sat over there and take images from the Apollo Landings then what they want to do in 2008/2009...

Are you talking about flying an existing spy satellite from Earth orbit over to the moon? I surely hope I misunderstood what you are saying.

Besides, the LRO will be able to do much more science than a spy satellite could possibly do. Even if a spy satellite is cheaper (and I don't know if that's true), comparing the capabilities of each spacecraft would be like comparing apples and oranges. So again, I say why would the CIA bother to do something that is so totally irrelevant to their mission like waste one of their spy satellites by giving it to NASA to look at the Moon.
I'm not saying the CIA should do it I was using the CIA as an example.

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

...BTW if it's so expensive why are they going in 2008/2009 it's cheaper to fly a Sat over there and take images from the Apollo Landings then what they want to do in 2008/2009...

Are you talking about flying an existing spy satellite from Earth orbit over to the moon? I surely hope I misunderstood what you are saying.

Besides, the LRO will be able to do much more science than a spy satellite could possibly do. Even if a spy satellite is cheaper (and I don't know if that's true)

I certainly isn't true. Although LRO will not be cheap, it's no KH-11.

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 03:53 PM
I think there are somebody here in the pay of NASA that takes
people away from real evidences in order to debate about
nothing over and over.

Originally posted by bigbrain

...

Can a plastic covering defend a troncated cone made by aluminum from a temperature of 2,800°C?

Can a rocket land going backwards?

Is it normal that 3 poor men went to the Moon with a rocket that would have to land going backwards without testing it on the earth?

Answer my questions and try to say something intelligent.

I agree with bigbrain.

Answer these questions and try to say something intelligent.

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 04:42 PM
These questions have already been answered intelligently, over and over, in great detail. Yasky/Bigbrain and his ilk just refuse to accept the facts.

How many times do we have to go through the explanations of blunt-body aerodynamics, thermal protection systesm, and lunar landing vehicle dynamics?

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 07:14 PM

These questions have already been answered intelligently, over and over, in great detail. Yasky/Bigbrain and his ilk just refuse to accept the facts.

How many times do we have to go through the explanations of blunt-body aerodynamics, thermal protection systesm, and lunar landing vehicle dynamics?
No they haven't those are just "Post MoonHoax" coverups designed to make it seem as if MoonLandings happend.
1. www.erichufschmid.net...
2. www.erichufschmid.net...

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 07:36 PM

They have their "answers" to everything. You will be forced to go in circles until you give up. That is how it works.

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 09:57 PM

1. www.erichufschmid.net...
2. www.erichufschmid.net...

Well, for one thing, this person has never heard of diffuse reflection. The lunar regolith is a fine diffuse reflector. But that's not even the point. He apparently has not even the most rudimentary knowledge of photography.

You can't argue with the willfully ignorant.

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 09:58 PM

Originally posted by skepticfriend
I think there are somebody here in the pay of NASA that takes
people away from real evidences in order to debate about
nothing over and over.

Do tell. Who?

You must show your work to get full credit.

posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 02:12 PM

Originally posted by bigbrain
...

Ha, Ha, Ha,

Then, you are starting to go to the moon and you say: "OK, it's all right", BUT YOU HAVE NEVER TESTED THIS OLD CROCK

ON THE GROUND OF OUR PLANET and YOU WILL PILOT IT IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW.

The very least you had to do it was to test this strange piece of metal on the earth before testing it on the moon.

Nobody, except a raving mad, would go to the moon without testing the aircraft he will use for landing.

Ha, Ha, Ha,

What is this?

A spatial chicken on the spit?

At NASA there are a lot of jockers.

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:26 AM

Originally posted by disownedsky

1. www.erichufschmid.net...
2. www.erichufschmid.net...

Well, for one thing, this person has never heard of diffuse reflection. The lunar regolith is a fine diffuse reflector. But that's not even the point. He apparently has not even the most rudimentary knowledge of photography.

You can't argue with the willfully ignorant.
It's funny how you don't disprove what he says "Point by Point" yet you just say "he doesn't have the knowlege" just like the pethetic site "Bad Astronomy"

new topics

top topics

29