Regarding the whole moon landing conspiracy and the flag on the moon

reply to post by Hevcoat


But you Hevcoat are doing exactly what you say others are doing – spreading nonsense beliefs to other people. Where is the proof of the actual landing? Where is the contradiction to reality? What evidence has been ignored? Sure we can find evidence to contradict the ‘faking’ of the landing just as we can find evidence to contradict the actual landing – so who is right?
What makes your version anymore believable or less nonsense?

Originally posted by eightonefive
in 2002, the head researcher at the VLT (very large telescope), in the chilean andes, stated that his team would focus all twelve of the 10m mirrors onto the apollo landing sites, and end the conspiracy once and for all, stating that the VLT had the power to focus on smething the size of a human hair. After that press release, nothing more was reported on the subject.

In 2009 (January I believe), I contacted Dr. Oliver Halivaut (i'm not sure if I'm spelling his name right), and asked him what ever became of the research. He stated that they never said anything of the sort, to which I referenced the news articles and the wiki entries that contradicted this. He then replied that he would have to get back to me because the researcher who stated that had since retired, but he said that he didn't believe his old boss had ever made those comments as the VLT wouldn't be able to focus on somethng that small.

First, here's the article from the original source: www.telegraph.co.uk...

Second, why wouldn't you contact the person quoted in the article, Dr. Richard West. I believe this is him: www.astro.le.ac.uk...

Finally, you make a number of misleading or incorrect statements. The VLT has 4 mirrors, not 12. The mirrors are 8.2m, not 10m. The article does state that they can focus on a human hair, but at a distance of 10 miles, not one on the moon. The article makes it clear that the resolving power of the VLT at the time the article was written was in the 400 foot range. They state that the descent stages are only 10 feet in diameter, but they would be looking for a much larger shadow.

Here are some VLT iamges of the lunar surface: www.eso.org...

Telescope time is very precious. They would have had to take the images when the sun was at a very low angle, and as such, there would be a limited time they could take the images. Perhaps the weather was bad. Perhaps the telescope was unavailable at the right time. And it's also entirely possible that they tried to image the landing sites and got nothing because they simply can't resolve something that small. And to email someone (who exactly did you email?), and expect him to remember some images that may or may not have been taken 7 years ago is a bit much, I think.