Building a space shield to block radiation

[1 2 free]

This is a news story from three months ago. All the talk on the moonlanding hoax brought it to mind.

---------

Space shield to block radiation

By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News, Preston

British scientists are planning to see whether a Star Trek-style deflector shield could be built to protect astronauts from radiation.

They argue that magnetic shields could be deployed around spacecraft and on the surfaces of planets to deflect harmful energetic particles.

Several countries' space agencies have announced their intentions to resume human exploration of the Solar System.

Scientists hope to mimic the magnetic field which protects the Earth.

Details have been presented at the Royal Astronomical Society's National Astronomy Meeting in Preston, UK.

There are a variety of risks facing future space explorers, not least of which is the cancer-causing radiation from cosmic rays and solar flares that astronauts will encounter when they venture beyond the Earth's protective magnetic envelope, or magnetosphere.

The nice thing is that magnet technology is really quite evolved here on Earth. The question is can you take it into space?
Mike Hapgood,
Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory

The Earth's magnetosphere deflects many of the energetic particles from space; others are largely absorbed by the atmosphere.

Between 1968 and 1973, the Apollo astronauts were only in space for about 10 days at a time.

They were simply lucky not to have been in space during a major eruption on the Sun that would have flooded their spacecraft with deadly radiation.

Crew members on the International Space Station can retreat to a thick-walled room during times of increased solar radiation.

Stable field

But these protective shelters would not be practical on long-duration space journeys, since the "drip-drip" of energised particles is thought to be as harmful to the health of astronauts as large solar storms.

The harmful particles come from the Sun, in the form of the solar wind, and from sources outside our Solar System.

To create the deflector shield around a spacecraft or on the surface of a planet or moon, scientists need to generate a magnetic field and then fill it with ionised gas called plasma.

The plasma would held in place by a stable magnetic field (without the magnetic field, the plasma would simply drift away). This shield could be deployed around a spacecraft or around astronauts on the surface of a planetary body such as the Moon.

As energetic particles interact with the plasma, energy is sapped away from them and they slow down.

"You don't need much of a magnetic field to hold off the solar wind. You could produce the shield 20-30 kilometres away from the spacecraft," explained Dr Ruth Bamford, from the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory in Didcot, UK, one of the scientists on the team.

Dr Mike Hapgood, from the Didcot-based research centre, told BBC News: "The nice thing is that magnet technology is really quite evolved here on Earth. The question is can you take it into space?'"

The team from Rutherford-Appleton plans to build an artificial magnetosphere in the laboratory. They would eventually like to fly a test satellite which would test the technology in space.

'Shields on'

The idea has been likened to the deflector shields which protect the USS Enterprise and other spacecraft in Star Trek. Like their fictional counterparts, these shields could also be switched on and off.

An artificial magnetosphere could come in handy anywhere in the Solar System where humans would need to be for long durations.

A permanent Moon base, of the type Nasa plans to build, could be buried under lunar soil to protect the occupants and equipment from space radiation. But inhabitants will still be vulnerable when venturing outside in their spacesuits.

"Our warning systems aren't very good [for solar flares]. You might be able to say: 'this is a dangerous period in terms of solar activity', but you might be on red alert for weeks," said Dr Hapgood.

"If you've got a problem, you might not want to wait a week to fix it. You might want a device to deploy on the surface as a shield that would blunt the effect of a flare at ten minutes' notice, it adds an extra level of safety."

The idea for the shields draws on technology pioneered in experimental nuclear fusion reactors. Nuclear fusion is not yet a mature technology.

It works on the principle that energy can be released by forcing together atomic nuclei rather than by splitting them, as in the case of the fission reactions that drive existing nuclear power stations.

At the Jet experimental fusion facility at Culham in the UK, magnetic fields were used to keep plasma away from the interior wall of the reactor.

This represents a reversal of that technology: "We want to use the same technique to keep an object in the middle away from plasma that's on the outside," said Dr Bamford.

But the plasma needed to protect against particles from the solar wind and elsewhere would actually be weaker than that generated in experimental fusion reactors like Jet.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/6567709.stm

Published: 2007/04/18 15:29:50 GMT

[hagbard_celine]

I used to have a book called "The Young Scientists' guide to Spaceflight" published by Usbourne. I read it as a kid in the 80's and it's probably out of print now, but it contains a cutaway picture of a spacecraft with a "storm cellar" for traversing the Van Allen belts. How come? I thought the Van Allen belts were not a problem. :confused::rolleyes:

The Apollo missions took place during the solar maximum, the worst time of the sunspot cycle to do it. Of course space exploration invovles risks, but was this an acceptable risk? It sounds to me like a game of Russian roulette!Why not wait a couple of years to be on the safe side?

[david ickes bike]

I used to have a book called "The Young Scientists' guide to Spaceflight" published by Usbourne. I read it as a kid in the 80's and it's probably out of print now, but it contains a cutaway picture of a spacecraft with a "storm cellar" for traversing the Van Allen belts. How come? I thought the Van Allen belts were not a problem. :confused::rolleyes:

The Apollo missions took place during the solar maximum, the worst time of the sunspot cycle to do it. Of course space exploration invovles risks, but was this an acceptable risk? It sounds to me like a game of Russian roulette!Why not wait a couple of years to be on the safe side?

Hagbard that book proberbly does not say the storm cellar is to protect them from the Van Allen Belts. The name storm cellar gives it away. In the book this fictional spacecraft has a storm cellar to protect from solar events. Still even so you cant write off the Apollo missions because of what it says in one book. What about the thousands of books that dont agree? People get the wrong idea that all radiation is the same and say you would need lead 3 foot thick to go through the belts. They dont realise lead would be the worst thing to use in this case. Dr Van Allen said that going through the belts wouldn't be a problem what was it an hour each way. Also as i read in the other thread if you say the belts cannot be traveled in what about the ISS and STS? They dont hide in the storm cellar for 15 Min's out of every 90.

The reason for the new shields is the length of the future missions planed.

Solar events can be predicted quite accurately and systems were in place to deal with the situation on Apollo along with luck. You ask why not wait a couple of years, what was it Kennedy said.

[davidbarstis]

Hagbard that book proberbly does not say the storm cellar is to protect them from the Van Allen Belts. The name storm cellar gives it away. In the book this fictional spacecraft has a storm cellar to protect from solar events. Still even so you cant write off the Apollo missions because of what it says in one book. What about the thousands of books that dont agree? People get the wrong idea that all radiation is the same and say you would need lead 3 foot thick to go through the belts. They dont realise lead would be the worst thing to use in this case. Dr Van Allen said that going through the belts wouldn't be a problem what was it an hour each way. Also as i read in the other thread if you say the belts cannot be traveled in what about the ISS and STS? They dont hide in the storm cellar for 15 Min's out of every 90.

The reason for the new shields is the length of the future missions planed.

Solar events can be predicted quite accurately and systems were in place to deal with the situation on Apollo along with luck. You ask why not wait a couple of years, what was it Kennedy said.

ISS and STS travel in LEO and only touch the Van Allen Belts when the dip down closer to the Earth such as over Brasil. And you can find that basic fact anywhere. I don't know where people get their idea that these things are in deep space? They are below the belts.
Also, Dr. Van Allen also stated in 1959 :"Our planet is encircled by two zones of high energy particles, against which space travellers will have to be sheilded." Why is it convenient not to quote him when he says that?
Why does NASA keep adjusting data to fit their explainations and why do NASA officials state that the levels of radiation in the Van Allen Belts is VERY dangerous, but that there are no real problems? I'll tell you why. Despite the facts known by there officials, they believe that the Moon landing must have happened so fit their answers around the facts because they are as much in the dark about this thing then everyone else. Same with 911.
Why would anyone who was serious about researching the Moon landing hoax go to NASA for facts? It is childs play to fool people and you eat it up every time.
The fact of the matter is this, no one has to prove the hoax, they have to prove it happened. Since not one of us has been to the Moon, it's insanity to take NASA's word for it. For all the NASA believers, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BASE IT ON? You gain nothing by it. I gain by not believing because I have my own mind.

[david ickes bike]

ISS and STS travel in LEO and only touch the Van Allen Belts when the dip down closer to the Earth such as over Brasil. And you can find that basic fact anywhere. I don't know where people get their idea that these things are in deep space? They are below the belts.
Also, Dr. Van Allen also stated in 1959 :"Our planet is encircled by two zones of high energy particles, against which space travellers will have to be sheilded." Why is it convenient not to quote him when he says that?
Why does NASA keep adjusting data to fit their explainations and why do NASA officials state that the levels of radiation in the Van Allen Belts is VERY dangerous, but that there are no real problems? I'll tell you why. Despite the facts known by there officials, they believe that the Moon landing must have happened so fit their answers around the facts because they are as much in the dark about this thing then everyone else. Same with 911.
Why would anyone who was serious about researching the Moon landing hoax go to NASA for facts? It is childs play to fool people and you eat it up every time.
The fact of the matter is this, no one has to prove the hoax, they have to prove it happened. Since not one of us has been to the Moon, it's insanity to take NASA's word for it. For all the NASA believers, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BASE IT ON? You gain nothing by it. I gain by not believing because I have my own mind.

The ISS and STS travel in the belts 15 Min's out of every 90 min orbit. On a stay in the ISS this exposes the astronauts to much more radiation than a 1 hour stay. I never though either the STS or ISS were deep in space.

Whats you point, Dr. Van Allen did say that and they are and they were. At no point did he say you couldn't travel through them.

The radiation levels in the belts are very dangerous nobody said they were not. If you hung around they could fuck you up or kill you. That's why the flight paths of the Apollo missions went through the thinnest part at high speed. NASA stated recently the belts were more dangerous than previously thought that how science works.

You are talking about absolute proof but i doubt you would except anything as proof even a trip out there. AB's can provide evidence that supports their claim HB's cannot.

[davidbarstis]

The ISS and STS travel in the belts 15 Min's out of every 90 min orbit. On a stay in the ISS this exposes the astronauts to much more radiation than a 1 hour stay. I never though either the STS or ISS were deep in space.

Whats you point, Dr. Van Allen did say that and they are and they were. At no point did he say you couldn't travel through them.

The radiation levels in the belts are very dangerous nobody said they were not. If you hung around they could fuck you up or kill you. That's why the flight paths of the Apollo missions went through the thinnest part at high speed. NASA stated recently the belts were more dangerous than previously thought that how science works.

You are talking about absolute proof but i doubt you would except anything as proof even a trip out there. AB's can provide evidence that supports their claim HB's cannot.

There's no way possible you can provide evidence. Now you're being unreasonable.
[INDENT]Just one small question. I want YOUR reason that the shadows in the Moon pictures are impossible for one light source. I don't want NASA's reason, I want yours. NASA already admitted not bringing any extra lighting so that's out.

[david ickes bike]

I want YOUR reason that the shadows in the Moon pictures are impossible for one light source. I don't want NASA's reason, I want yours. NASA already admitted not bringing any extra lighting so that's out

Look you may not like it but rocks, photos, film, Data, independent verification etc etc etc are evidence to support my claims You however have nothing to support yours.

The shadows are not impossible for one light source i never said they were that would be evidence of a hoax something you dont have.

Also if my reason for something is the same as NASA am im not allowed to use it? Your question seems to imply that when NASA provide the correct reason for something i have to make one up.

Let me ask what sort of HB are you the classic we never went or a variation of that IE they went but not who we were told or alien technology etc.

[david ickes bike]

Dave to be honest the stuff your bringing up is old hat totally debunked stuff which most HB's have left behind. This stuff has been ripped to shreds that many times the HB's have moved on from the situation. Its more along the lines of surrogate astronughts in case of a disaster or they did go but in Alien technology not ours etc. Hb's realised the no stars, shadow, van Allen belts barrier stuff was just rubbish.

[david ickes bike]

This is a news story from three months ago. All the talk on the moonlanding hoax brought it to mind.

---------

Space shield to block radiation

By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News, Preston

British scientists are planning to see whether a Star Trek-style deflector shield could be built to protect astronauts from radiation.

They argue that magnetic shields could be deployed around spacecraft and on the surfaces of planets to deflect harmful energetic particles.

Several countries' space agencies have announced their intentions to resume human exploration of the Solar System.

Scientists hope to mimic the magnetic field which protects the Earth.

Details have been presented at the Royal Astronomical Society's National Astronomy Meeting in Preston, UK.

There are a variety of risks facing future space explorers, not least of which is the cancer-causing radiation from cosmic rays and solar flares that astronauts will encounter when they venture beyond the Earth's protective magnetic envelope, or magnetosphere.

The nice thing is that magnet technology is really quite evolved here on Earth. The question is can you take it into space?
Mike Hapgood,
Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory

The Earth's magnetosphere deflects many of the energetic particles from space; others are largely absorbed by the atmosphere.

Between 1968 and 1973, the Apollo astronauts were only in space for about 10 days at a time.

They were simply lucky not to have been in space during a major eruption on the Sun that would have flooded their spacecraft with deadly radiation.

Crew members on the International Space Station can retreat to a thick-walled room during times of increased solar radiation.

Stable field

But these protective shelters would not be practical on long-duration space journeys, since the "drip-drip" of energised particles is thought to be as harmful to the health of astronauts as large solar storms.

The harmful particles come from the Sun, in the form of the solar wind, and from sources outside our Solar System.

To create the deflector shield around a spacecraft or on the surface of a planet or moon, scientists need to generate a magnetic field and then fill it with ionised gas called plasma.

The plasma would held in place by a stable magnetic field (without the magnetic field, the plasma would simply drift away). This shield could be deployed around a spacecraft or around astronauts on the surface of a planetary body such as the Moon.

As energetic particles interact with the plasma, energy is sapped away from them and they slow down.

"You don't need much of a magnetic field to hold off the solar wind. You could produce the shield 20-30 kilometres away from the spacecraft," explained Dr Ruth Bamford, from the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory in Didcot, UK, one of the scientists on the team.

Dr Mike Hapgood, from the Didcot-based research centre, told BBC News: "The nice thing is that magnet technology is really quite evolved here on Earth. The question is can you take it into space?'"

The team from Rutherford-Appleton plans to build an artificial magnetosphere in the laboratory. They would eventually like to fly a test satellite which would test the technology in space.

'Shields on'

The idea has been likened to the deflector shields which protect the USS Enterprise and other spacecraft in Star Trek. Like their fictional counterparts, these shields could also be switched on and off.

An artificial magnetosphere could come in handy anywhere in the Solar System where humans would need to be for long durations.

A permanent Moon base, of the type Nasa plans to build, could be buried under lunar soil to protect the occupants and equipment from space radiation. But inhabitants will still be vulnerable when venturing outside in their spacesuits.

"Our warning systems aren't very good [for solar flares]. You might be able to say: 'this is a dangerous period in terms of solar activity', but you might be on red alert for weeks," said Dr Hapgood.

"If you've got a problem, you might not want to wait a week to fix it. You might want a device to deploy on the surface as a shield that would blunt the effect of a flare at ten minutes' notice, it adds an extra level of safety."

The idea for the shields draws on technology pioneered in experimental nuclear fusion reactors. Nuclear fusion is not yet a mature technology.

It works on the principle that energy can be released by forcing together atomic nuclei rather than by splitting them, as in the case of the fission reactions that drive existing nuclear power stations.

At the Jet experimental fusion facility at Culham in the UK, magnetic fields were used to keep plasma away from the interior wall of the reactor.

This represents a reversal of that technology: "We want to use the same technique to keep an object in the middle away from plasma that's on the outside," said Dr Bamford.

But the plasma needed to protect against particles from the solar wind and elsewhere would actually be weaker than that generated in experimental fusion reactors like Jet.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/6567709.stm

Published: 2007/04/18 15:29:50 GMT

A major solar event doesn't just cut loose without warning. It is possible to observe the "weather" on the sun and predict when a major event will occur. And this is what was done on the Apollo missions. To be sure, the missions were planned months in advance and the forecasting was not that farsighted. But they would have had enough warning to call off the mission should a solar event have started boiling up from the sun.

Statistical probability was the main protection for the Apollo crews. The forecasters would have been able to rule out major events during the first few days of the mission. And so out of a nine-day mission that might only leave five or six days of vulnerability. The chances of a major solar event occurring within a given five-day period is quite remote, even during periods of exceptional activity.

Solar events are directional. They don't fan out from the sun in concentric rings; they're more like cosmic shotgun blasts. And so if an event should occur, it's more likely to throw particles in some other direction rather than toward the earth and its moon.

[davidbarstis]

Dave to be honest the stuff your bringing up is old hat totally debunked stuff which most HB's have left behind. This stuff has been ripped to shreds that many times the HB's have moved on from the situation. Its more along the lines of surrogate astronughts in case of a disaster or they did go but in Alien technology not ours etc. Hb's realised the no stars, shadow, van Allen belts barrier stuff was just rubbish.

Actually, your reasons have been ripped to shreds because they don't answer a thing. YOU can't answer the question, plain and simple. I believe there is advanced technology for flying and believe someone has been to the Moon and beyond. But those astronauts did not go.
Rocks, photos, data blah blah blah... This is NOT eveidence because you have no idea if they are real or not. LOL This is not your information, its NASA's. Have you analyzed the rocks? How the heck do you know the difference between a Moon rock and a meteor or any other rock?
Your arguments hold no water, my friend. They are NASA propaganda. It is imposible for you to prove any of it is real.
And by the way, yes the shadows are impossible whether you said so or not. The evidence for that is here on Earth. Objects with one light source does not give off two shadows and if you think they do then lol I don't know what to tell you.
You cannot defend something as fact that you played no part in. You keep saying things have been proven to be false about the hoax theory? Stop parroting and let's here the explaination for it all my friend. I'd love to hear how smart you are. Let's hear facts and not the garbage over and over.
lol I can't believe you used rocks as evidence. You wouldn't know a Moon rock if you saw it.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

Objects with one light source does not give off two shadows and if you think they do then lol I don't know what to tell you.

Please provide ONE "moon photo" that show an object with two shadows and if you can accomplish that I might believe in the moon hoax.

[david ickes bike]

Actually, your reasons have been ripped to shreds because they don't answer a thing. YOU can't answer the question, plain and simple. I believe there is advanced technology for flying and believe someone has been to the Moon and beyond. But those astronauts did not go.
Rocks, photos, data blah blah blah... This is NOT eveidence because you have no idea if they are real or not. LOL This is not your information, its NASA's. Have you analyzed the rocks? How the heck do you know the difference between a Moon rock and a meteor or any other rock?
Your arguments hold no water, my friend. They are NASA propaganda. It is imposible for you to prove any of it is real.
And by the way, yes the shadows are impossible whether you said so or not. The evidence for that is here on Earth. Objects with one light source does not give off two shadows and if you think they do then lol I don't know what to tell you.
You cannot defend something as fact that you played no part in. You keep saying things have been proven to be false about the hoax theory? Stop parroting and let's here the explaination for it all my friend. I'd love to hear how smart you are. Let's hear facts and not the garbage over and over.
lol I can't believe you used rocks as evidence. You wouldn't know a Moon rock if you saw it.

You dont ask any questions you just insist no one can answer them.

[david ickes bike]

Please provide ONE "moon photo" that show an object with two shadows and if you can accomplish that I might believe in the moon hoax.

:D

I want YOUR reason that the shadows in the Moon pictures are impossible for one light source. I don't want NASA's reason, I want yours.

So when NASA provide the right answer i have to make one up lol.

Why does he think i think the Moon pictures are impossible for one light source.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

I don't think this is guy is thinking, full stop :D

[rocco marchegiano]

:D

[hagbard_celine]

Hagbard that book proberbly does not say the storm cellar is to protect them from the Van Allen Belts. The name storm cellar gives it away. In the book this fictional spacecraft has a storm cellar to protect from solar events. Still even so you cant write off the Apollo missions because of what it says in one book. What about the thousands of books that dont agree? People get the wrong idea that all radiation is the same and say you would need lead 3 foot thick to go through the belts. They dont realise lead would be the worst thing to use in this case. Dr Van Allen said that going through the belts wouldn't be a problem what was it an hour each way. Also as i read in the other thread if you say the belts cannot be traveled in what about the ISS and STS? They dont hide in the storm cellar for 15 Min's out of every 90.

The reason for the new shields is the length of the future missions planed.

Solar events can be predicted quite accurately and systems were in place to deal with the situation on Apollo along with luck. You ask why not wait a couple of years, what was it Kennedy said.

No, the book definitely stated that the "storm cellar" was designed to protect the spacecraft's crew while traversing the van Allen belts. I remember it clearly, because that was when I first heard about the van Allen belts.

I remember what Kennedy said: that we must do it "before this decade is out" but when he said it, how did he know what kind of hazard the van Allen belts posed? Nobody did completely.

[1 2 free]

Please provide ONE "moon photo" that show an object with two shadows and if you can accomplish that I might believe in the moon hoax.

I'm sure if you Google around you'll find the pictures with the shadows going in two different directions and also showing other pictures that appear to have been taken with additional light sources. I have the book 'Dark Moon' (by Mary Bennett and David S Percy) which covers this.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

I'm sure if you Google around you'll find the pictures with the shadows going in two different directions and also showing other pictures that appear to have been taken with additional light sources. I have the book 'Dark Moon' (by Mary Bennett and David S Percy) which covers this.

I am not interested in googling around for the very reason I know that there are no photos that show objects with multiple shadows. If you make a claim support your claim and provide me with a photo.

That is why I asked it to be presented to me for further analysis.

There is little point in coming to a discussion on the moon hoax if i have to google my own evidence that supports a hoax and then argue against it.

I'll ask again, please find me a photo that supports exactly what was claimed i.e. Objects with multiple shadows.

You make the claim with such authority it shouldn't be too hard to provide your own evidence to support such a claim.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

[INDENT]The evidence for that is here on Earth. Objects with one light source does not give off two shadows and if you think they do then lol I don't know what to tell you


Provide ONE photo that supports what you say.

What is written here is very clear. He doesn't say "shadows with different directions" (already explained and proved here on earth by the fact that terrain alters shadow fall angles as well as length). He explicitly says objects that give off two shadows, to which I never seen a photo graph even on an HB's site.

Considering the pomposity and cleverness to which the statement was presented I would like to see justification for such a smug outburst.

Rather more likely that davidbarstis has got his facts wrong about what HB's actually believe (a problem that arises when you only parrot facts without understanding anything that's going on and then getting your information wrong).

It's the very nature that there are no photos of objects with multiple shadows that do not support the HB's hypothesis that more than one light source was used to change the apparent direction of shadows on objects nearby. If there were multiple light sources then you would have more than one shadow per object!

[david ickes bike]

No, the book definitely stated that the "storm cellar" was designed to protect the spacecraft's crew while traversing the van Allen belts. I remember it clearly, because that was when I first heard about the van Allen belts.

I remember what Kennedy said: that we must do it "before this decade is out" but when he said it, how did he know what kind of hazard the van Allen belts posed? Nobody did completely.


The book was wrong then simple as that you do not need a storm cellar to travel through the belts. A storm cellar is an idea put forward to use on longer trips to protect from solar storms hence the name storm cellar.

Not everything was know about the belts then or now. Still enough was known to realize a 1 hour stint wouldn't be a problem.

[1 2 free]

I am not interested in googling around for the very reason I know that there are no photos that show objects with multiple shadows. If you make a claim support your claim and provide me with a photo.

That is why I asked it to be presented to me for further analysis.

There is little point in coming to a discussion on the moon hoax if i have to google my own evidence that supports a hoax and then argue against it.

I'll ask again, please find me a photo that supports exactly what was claimed i.e. Objects with multiple shadows.

You make the claim with such authority it shouldn't be too hard to provide your own evidence to support such a claim.

If you're only interested in arguing against something then what's the point exactly?

[david ickes bike]

I'm sure if you Google around you'll find the pictures with the shadows going in two different directions and also showing other pictures that appear to have been taken with additional light sources. I have the book 'Dark Moon' (by Mary Bennett and David S Percy) which covers this.

Well i googled around and found pictures of shadows going in different directions with only 1 light source.

Heres one

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/3756/shadowsbr0.jpg

Theres loads which show converging shadows also.


Actually some people i know took a load of pictures not long ago which disprove everyone of the claims, if i find them i will post them later.

Mary Bennett and David Percy forgive me if i chuckle. Mr Percy the man described as a professional photographer who knows nothing about photography or pretends he dosent. Those pair of jokers their books and web sites aint worth pissing on IMO.

Still heres a site which shows just how much Mr Percy talks out of his arse.

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm

[david ickes bike]

I love it when they contradict themselves.

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/random.htm

[reptilianshapeshifter]

If you're only interested in arguing against something then what's the point exactly?

Huh??? Look, all i asked for was one photo showing an object with more than one shadow like the other guy said. Why are you trying so damn hard not to get me a photo that shows this? I've looked on google (for the sake of this pointless argument between me and you) and I cannot find what this person is claiming.

Stop dancing around and just find me a photo.

When did i say i was only here to argue something? I shouldn't have to do my own research into what you or someone says that i disagree with. If you say something than be prepared to back it up with evidence. Why is that so unfair? It's like saying "i know a 5 headed monkey exists" and I say "show me a picture" and you say "erm. well i am sure there are some if you google for it!". You make the claim, you provide the evidence please.

[david ickes bike]

Jesus they have faked the Earth.

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5346/shadows3an8.jpg

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/8757/shadows2kg9.jpg

[reptilianshapeshifter]

i know, but none of those pictures will be good enough for HB's to even consider they have their photographic facts wrong. Graflok is the resident "photographic specialist", but i am sure even he can find some good excuse as to why that should not happen on the moon but does on earth.

[david ickes bike]

Its strange because its not that difficult to understand. Is it a case of cant understand, dont want to understand or never even looked at it.

[hagbard_celine]

Well i googled around and found pictures of shadows going in different directions with only 1 light source.

Heres one

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/3756/shadowsbr0.jpg

Theres loads which show converging shadows also.


Actually some people i know took a load of pictures not long ago which disprove everyone of the claims, if i find them i will post them later.



If you're talking about Phil Plait or Calvius, I won't bother even looking. Been there, seen it, done it!:rolleyes:

Interesting how those two trees are in silhouette; where's the fill-in light reflecting off the ground? The albedo of the moon is similar to the road surface on which the light is falling.

You've provided some good examples of natural perspective, yes. But just because shadows can go in different directions because of perspective doesn't mean they can go in any direction. I don't see how they can go at angles like this:

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/301/moonrightjr5.png (http://imageshack.us)
Shot at 2007-07-17

[david ickes bike]

So you went there did that and still believe this crap?

Lol.

Either you are never going to understand which i find hard to believe or you just refuse too.

[hagbard_celine]

So you went there did that and still believe this crap?

Lol.

Either you are never going to understand which i find hard to believe or you just refuse too.

No, I listened to what they had to say and was not convinced.

Funny Skeptics say this would make me "stubborn" and "brainwashed"; yet if I was a Skeptic who listened thoughroughly to the HB argument and said "I've listened to what they had to say and was not convinced" I'd get a big round of applause and be called "sensible" and "rational". Sounds like a double-standard to me.:mad:

[reptilianshapeshifter]

If you're talking about Phil Plait or Calvius, I won't bother even looking. Been there, seen it, done it!:rolleyes:

Interesting how those two trees are in silhouette; where's the fill-in light reflecting off the ground? The albedo of the moon is similar to the road surface on which the light is falling.

You've provided some good examples of natural perspective, yes. But just because shadows can go in different directions because of perspective doesn't mean they can go in any direction. I don't see how they can go at angles like this:

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/301/moonrightjr5.png (http://imageshack.us)
Shot at 2007-07-17

what you mean like this?

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/0phase2.jpg

[reptilianshapeshifter]

No, I listened to what they had to say and was not convinced.

Funny Skeptics say this would make me "stubborn" and "brainwashed"; yet if I was a Skeptic who listened thoughroughly to the HB argument and said "I've listened to what they had to say and was not convinced" I'd get a big round of applause and be called "sensible" and "rational". Sounds like a double-standard to me.:mad:

I think the inherent problem is that for you to believe that apollo wasn't hoaxed would bring too much into question for a mind already suspicious about anything ever said by "official" sources.

For me, i couldn't give a fuck if it was hoaxed or not. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it and it wouldn't make my world fall around my shoulders. If it was proved beyond all doubt to be hoaxed it would make for a very entertaining story. I certainly wouldn't care enough about it.

[david ickes bike]

The Moon hoax arguments are so silly and so easily refuted mostly with common sense it does seem strange that a person cannot understand why its BS.

[david ickes bike]

I think the inherent problem is that for you to believe that apollo wasn't hoaxed would bring too much into question for a mind already suspicious about anything ever said by "official" sources.

For me, i couldn't give a fuck if it was hoaxed or not. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it and it wouldn't make my world fall around my shoulders. If it was proved beyond all doubt to be hoaxed it would make for a very entertaining story. I certainly wouldn't care enough about it.

Nail head meet hammer.

[1 2 free]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x57/speakyourtruth/shadows2kg9.jpg

How come the guy in the red shirt has an invisible left foot? And his left leg doesn't cast a shadow? And how come the guy on the left has a shadow that's straight along one edge and square at the end? His shadow is oblong.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x57/speakyourtruth/shadows1.jpg

How come the shadow of the rock doesn't match the shape of the rock? It's square at the end too. And how come the bush has no shadow at all?

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x57/speakyourtruth/shadows2.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x57/speakyourtruth/shadows3an8.jpg

No visible light source on this one so why include it?

As we all know anything is fakeable in Photoshop so you can't really trust a picture to prove anything anymore.

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/0phase2.jpg

What would that take in Photoshop? 30 seconds? A minute?

[david ickes bike]

Do yourself a favor take your cam outside and recreate the shots for yourself.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

tell you what, 1 2 free, why don't you take the last photo and photoshop some shadows for us.

here's what i suggest. move the shadow on the rock 90 degress south.

And as I'm a fair man, you can more than a minute. I'll expect it by tomorrow as you'll only need such little time to actually accomplish it.

[david ickes bike]

Imagine the shocked look on his face if he actually bothered to go outside with a cam and do a real experiment for himself. What a picture stick it in your family album and all that.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

Imagine the shocked look on his face if he actually bothered to go outside with a cam and do a real experiment for himself. What a picture stick it in your family album and all that.

why experiment when all the answers are laid out for you.

even i did simple experiments in my apartment to see if multiple light sources would cast more than one shadow on a single object. And guess what???? They do!!! :D Not in the studio though with all that wizardry. The same wizardry that got NASA into this mess in the first place :D

[hagbard_celine]

what you mean like this?

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/0phase2.jpg

No. That's another example of natural perspective. If you look at the angles of the shadows in the two pictures you'll see that they're quite different. The rock in the "moon" shot has a distinct lobe almost to its 9 o'clock position.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

I think you are clutching at straws here. if there was another light source why is there no shadow going straight up from the rock at 12 oclock??? It makes NO SENSE!

So the photo i show you is natural perspective and bears no resemblance and yet all you have to go on is based on your theory of your understanding of what should be there based on the fact you believe there are multiple light sources. If there are multiple light sources where are the extras shadows around the rock?

Let's just presume for the sake of an argument that the moon landing was faked on earth. Why does that mean that the pictures have to be shot with spotlights????? Why can't you believe that the photos are not actually incorrect?

The thing about using spotlights is that it's so illogical and is substantiated only by the HB's claim that nasa wanted professional looking shots. It matters not that even if they wanted to fake it it would be logical even to a person with a below average IQ that they would emulate the conditions of the moon and only use a single source of light.

[hagbard_celine]

I think you are clutching at straws here. if there was another light source why is there no shadow going straight up from the rock at 12 oclock??? It makes NO SENSE!

So the photo i show you is natural perspective and bears no resemblance and yet all you have to go on is based on your theory of your understanding of what should be there based on the fact you believe there are multiple light sources. If there are multiple light sources where are the extras shadows around the rock?

Let's just presume for the sake of an argument that the moon landing was faked on earth. Why does that mean that the pictures have to be shot with spotlights????? Why can't you believe that the photos are not actually incorrect?

The thing about using spotlights is that it's so illogical and is substantiated only by the HB's claim that nasa wanted professional looking shots. It matters not that even if they wanted to fake it it would be logical even to a person with a below average IQ that they would emulate the conditions of the moon and only use a single source of light.


Only if you were concerned that people would actually sit down and analyse the photoes thoroughly. But they must have known that this was not going to happen. This was one of the most singificant events in human history! It happened before I was born, but for people who remember it, it was a tidal wave of emotion! Who's going to even contemplate that it could be faked!? "They just don't fake things like that! They just don't!"

As for multiple shadows. These do occur in multiple light sources of similar intensity, like at a floodlit football ground. But simply using a big main light with weaker and more diffuse secondary lights will not produce multiple shadows if they're positioned and set carefully. This is easy to do in a studio envirnoment and the floor manager of the Apollo sets would have made sure of it. You don't see multiple shadows on the sets of "Star Wars"? The need to eliminate multiple shdows is in no way connected with the hypothetical need to produce natural shadows.

[david ickes bike]

No. That's another example of natural perspective. If you look at the angles of the shadows in the two pictures you'll see that they're quite different. The rock in the "moon" shot has a distinct lobe almost to its 9 o'clock position.

Its an example of the same thing that causes some of the Moon pic to look weird.

[david ickes bike]

Only if you were concerned that people would actually sit down and analyse the photoes thoroughly. But they must have known that this was not going to happen.

Are you trying to say the most studied photographs in the world in fact have not been thoroughly scrutinised? Also is it your claim that NASA dint think people would want to study them:confused:

[david ickes bike]

And by the way, yes the shadows are impossible whether you said so or not. The evidence for that is here on Earth. Objects with one light source does not give off two shadows and if you think they do then lol I don't know what to tell you.


Now show the Apollo picture with 2 shadows.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

i notice davidbarstis is being very quiet and the other guy i challenged hasn't come back with a nice photoshopped picture yet (that would only take minutes by his own account).

the reason the two rocks look different is because they are different shaped rocks. the moon rock (from what i can tell) curves off the ground thus having a lobe shape while the rock in the example is fixed to the ground. the angles of the shadow are very close though.

[hagbard_celine]

Are you trying to say the most studied photographs in the world in fact have not been thoroughly scrutinised? Also is it your claim that NASA dint think people would want to study them:confused:


It's often the very obvious that escapes us the most easily. To scrutinize the pictures in the way that might reveal a hoax? I can't see how you would do that unless the prospect of a hoax was already in the back of your mind. As I said above; it's impossible to do this while intoxicated with the glory and delight of the moment. That's why it took several years for the first scrutiny to be done, by Bill Kaysing (RIP). At the time he was a lone outsider, but now he has others and the hoax monement is gathering pace.

The Emperor has no clothes, but who's going to stand up and say it?

[reptilianshapeshifter]

the hoax movement gathers pace because suddenly hundreds of thousands of "know it alls" (present company excluded :D) think they are experts at photo analysis based on incorrect conclusions made in the first place.

bill kaysing (and the others) couldn't even be bothered to replicate experiments in their own backyard to try and disprove their theories.

That's what makes it completely unscientific. What did Bill Kaysing and all the others actually do to try and have their theories dismissed? Because that's what you would do if you were searching for truth. You would not only look for evidence that confirms but also try to find evidence that shows the opposite in your results otherwise you are swayed by an agenda.

[hagbard_celine]

the hoax movement gathers pace because suddenly hundreds of thousands of "know it alls" (present company excluded :D) think they are experts at photo analysis based on incorrect conclusions made in the first place.

bill kaysing (and the others) couldn't even be bothered to replicate experiments in their own backyard to try and disprove their theories.

That's what makes it completely unscientific. What did Bill Kaysing and all the others actually do to try and have their theories dismissed? Because that's what you would do if you were searching for truth. You would not only look for evidence that confirms but also try to find evidence that shows the opposite in your results otherwise you are swayed by an agenda.

Well maybe not. The reason the movement gathered pace is because times changed; people became much more cynical after the late 60's. the moon missions were also superceded by "other news".

And some of have looked at both sides of the story you know. ;)

[hagbard_celine]

Are you trying to say the most studied photographs in the world in fact have not been thoroughly scrutinised? Also is it your claim that NASA dint think people would want to study them:confused:


Here's similar situation:

In 1915, the ship Lusitania was brutally sunk by a German submarine, killing thousands. The atrocity was filmed and shown in cinemas all over the world. There was graphic footage shot of drowning passengers thrashing about in the sea and of people clinging to overloaded lifeobats screaming and waving their hands.

Only it wasn't. This film was shot on the Serpentine, a lake in Hyde Park, London. The people in the water were all actors; good swimmers too. But nobody questioned it. Not a single person asked "How did they get a camera out to the scene of the disaster?" "How come the waves on the 'sea' in the film were so small?" Everybody accepted it as a true and accurate record of a real event. Nobody analysed it, nobody scrutinized it. They just accpeted it in the shock and trauma of the event.


Nine years earlier they did the same with newsreel of the San Francisco earthquake; actually it was footage of a model city burning. It was obvious when you look at it today. But again nobody questioned it. Nobody analysed it, nobody scrutinized it. They just accepted it in the shock and trauma of the event.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

yeah but maybe you can shed some light on bill kaysings critical analysis of the photos. What routines and methodologies were set in place where he tried to disprove his theories and only came to the conclusion that his theories and results must be correct?

that's the difference between the HB's and the debunker's of HB's is that they at least show pictures that only confirm here on earth what happened on "the moon".

I have yet to see a single HB site where they show, with their own photos, that here on earth the light and shadows behave exactly as they theorise.

[hagbard_celine]

that's the difference between the HB's and the debunker's of HB's is that they at least show pictures that only confirm here on earth what happened on "the moon".

I have yet to see a single HB site where they show, with their own photos, that here on earth the light and shadows behave exactly as they theorise.

There used to be some on Aulis.com, but I can't find them now. However they do provide some exapmples in their book "Dark Moon".

[reptilianshapeshifter]

you're still avoiding my direct question about Bill Kaysing.

[sibe]

some videos you might want to see

http://www.freewebs.com/truestoriesvideoblog/seven.htm

have fun

[reptilianshapeshifter]

i've seen all of those and they are all bullshit and thoroughly discussed here. particularly the first one.

[sibe]

how is the wires Bullshit?

you mean you actually think they went? LOL

[reptilianshapeshifter]

what's ridiculous is that they use a dangling rig in "rehearsal" but then suddenly they recreate exactly the same effect with wires we can't even see attached to the tops of their heads i presume. it's laughable.


lol @ "and yes, we've done the necessary work to establish that percentage" :D:D:D:D:D it's the smugness on his face that cracks me up.

[sibe]

so you think that giant firework flew all the way to the moon and back did you!!! jezzzz all safe and sound :) did you know they tried to use a large catapult first but canceled as it was a one way trip, welcome to Hollywood i hear it's a great place :) Oh plzz com'on

[david ickes bike]

It's often the very obvious that escapes us the most easily. To scrutinize the pictures in the way that might reveal a hoax? I can't see how you would do that unless the prospect of a hoax was already in the back of your mind. As I said above; it's impossible to do this while intoxicated with the glory and delight of the moment. That's why it took several years for the first scrutiny to be done, by Bill Kaysing (RIP). At the time he was a lone outsider, but now he has others and the hoax monement is gathering pace.

The Emperor has no clothes, but who's going to stand up and say it?

You wouldnt have to look at the pictures looking for a hoax if what you say proves a hoax does. They all see the shadows the disapearing crooshairs etc. Its just they understand phoography where as you do not.

You seem to think the pictures are like holiday snaps. The pictures were taken so as much information could be brought home as possible. As soon as the pictures were available people in all different jobs all over the world were looking at them for all different reasons.



Bill Kaysing you must have smiled when you typed that. You mean Bill Kaysing the lying racist con man why would anyone listen to him? Do you really think bill believed the landings were a hoax lol he didn't. Kaysings friends will tell you that in private he used to laugh at people like you people who he had conned. Kaysing told punters he was an engineer who worked for rocketdyne during the Apollo period. In fact as you probably know he was librarian who left rocketdyne before the work on Apollo started. So he lied about himself to appear more qualified and to decive you into believing him, not a good start.

Bills experiments were comical only a moron would take then seriously the leaf blower the glove in the vacuum all a pile of shit.

Bill could of had his day in court, Lovel called him a crank and kaysing decided to sue. He was going to represent himself and prove in court the landings were a hoax. As ever with bill it was all piss and wind he never turned up.

Lets have a look at some of Bills bloopers

Three decades ago, when the world watched the Apollo landings, Bill Kaysing was watching too. (Conspiracy Theory, "Did We Land on the Moon?")

I watched none of the moon "landings." (Kaysing, We Never Went to the Moon 1981, p. 6; 2002, p. 7)

According to Bill Kaysing, the Apollo astronauts never left the earth.
The Apollo 11 vehicle, or Saturn 5, was sent out of people's sight, and then it was jettisoned into the South Atlantic, where all of the six that were launched now reside. There were no astronauts, of course, on board. (Nardwuar interview)

According to Bill Kaysing, the Apollo astronauts did leave the earth.
For the Conspiracy Theory show, he says he believes the astronauts lifted into orbit, waited several days, then splashed down in the ocean "as shown on film."

According to Bill Kaysing, the Apollo astronauts might have gone to the moon.

A trio of men supposedly made the quarter million mile journey between earth and its satellite. Now whether this journey was made or not, a great many people witness the failure of their leaders.... (We Never Went to the Moon, 2002, p. 70;)

On page 7 of We Never Went to the Moon Bill Kaysing asked, "Why did the Dutch papers, circa 1969, question the authenticity of the moon landing?"
The answer is simple: They didn't.

In the Nardwuar interview Kaysing admitted he had never seen any doubting Dutch newspapers. But that didn't stop other whistle suckers from repeating this rumour without, of course, bothering to check it out (e.g. Dark Moon, p. 289).

[david ickes bike]

how is the wires Bullshit?

you mean you actually think they went? LOL

The wires? notice how you only ever see 1? Its the communications antenna lol.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

You seem to think the pictures are like holiday snaps.

haha that cracked me up :D i had visions of flip-flops and loafers and a cheap-o disposable "24 snaps" camera on the moon.

[david ickes bike]

There used to be some on Aulis.com, but I can't find them now. However they do provide some exapmples in their book "Dark Moon".

Percy provides examples of shadows running parallel in Dark Moon, big deal. Standing in any other position they wouldn't have done. Pictures done just happen as they say.

If anyone decides to go to Aulis or read Dark Moon be warned both are full of lies terrible research and faked pictures. Percy has been caught using fake evidence many times now some may put this down to mistakes but its not. When Percy is told of the "mistakes" he leaves them on his site. I often wonder if a fool like me can spot percy's hoaxes a mile off why dont Hb's spot them, i put it down to the fact they dont research what HB's tell them they just except it.

Percy cannot understand why the pictures contain no stars or why some of the shadows converge or so he says. I say hes just a money making liar who relies on the fact most people will accept what he says because hes a pro photographer and a member of the royal society.

[david ickes bike]

some videos you might want to see

http://www.freewebs.com/truestoriesvideoblog/seven.htm

have fun

Astronauts faking footage lol its that one again round and round we go.

That film was marketed by the slime ball that goes under the name of Bart Sibrel. He edits the tape in deceitful ways and claims it shows astronauts faking the footage. Sibrel also claims he was sent this never seen before footage by NASA by mistake. The film was broadcast live as it happened and has been available on Dvds and videos for years and years. What you are actually seeing is them setting up and practicing for a scheduled TV live broadcast.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I think its about part 3 onwards where Sibrels secret tape is dealt with. Sibrel also claims there are only 12 pictures of men on the Moon, you go figure.

[david ickes bike]

Well maybe not. The reason the movement gathered pace is because times changed; people became much more cynical after the late 60's. the moon missions were also superceded by "other news".

And some of have looked at both sides of the story you know. ;)

Hagbard you may have looked at both sides but it was with a mind that was already made up there was a hoax of some sort. You probably went down the road from the didn't go at all to they stayed in LO to they used alien technology to surrogate astronughts. As you realised just how silly and undefendable the HB's argument are.

[hagbard_celine]

you're still avoiding my direct question about Bill Kaysing.

Sorry. The answer is: I don't know. I've never read Kaysing's book and only know his work through a few articles and second-hand statements. He was wrong about the stars issue. There's plenty of reasons why stars may or may not be in the pictures.

[hagbard_celine]

. When Percy is told of the "mistakes" he leaves them on his site.

You probably went down the road from the didn't go at all to they stayed in LO to they used alien technology to surrogate astronughts. As you realised just how silly and undefendable the HB's argument are.

(Silence)

[david ickes bike]

(Silence)


Many people have complained to Aulis and nothings been done there used to be a message board dedicated to the fact.

[david ickes bike]

so you think that giant firework flew all the way to the moon and back did you!!! jezzzz all safe and sound :) did you know they tried to use a large catapult first but canceled as it was a one way trip, welcome to Hollywood i hear it's a great place :) Oh plzz com'on


One of if not the finest machine ever made containing millions of parts put together with the accuracy of the finest watch and you call it a giant firework.

[rocco marchegiano]

Sorry. The answer is: I don't know. I've never read Kaysing's book and only know his work through a few articles and second-hand statements. He was wrong about the stars issue. There's plenty of reasons why stars may or may not be in the pictures.

Hmm thats strange In your shouldn't he be at school thread on DC you listed Kaysing as one of your preferred researchers. Now your saying you dont know much about him. I suppose if you did you wouldn't have said that.

[davidbarstis]

Amazing how people who have never been to the Moon are 100% certain that a photo of the Moon's surface is real. Sounds intelligent to me.

[davidbarstis]

Percy provides examples of shadows running parallel in Dark Moon, big deal. Standing in any other position they wouldn't have done. Pictures done just happen as they say.

If anyone decides to go to Aulis or read Dark Moon be warned both are full of lies terrible research and faked pictures. Percy has been caught using fake evidence many times now some may put this down to mistakes but its not. When Percy is told of the "mistakes" he leaves them on his site. I often wonder if a fool like me can spot percy's hoaxes a mile off why dont Hb's spot them, i put it down to the fact they dont research what HB's tell them they just except it.

Percy cannot understand why the pictures contain no stars or why some of the shadows converge or so he says. I say hes just a money making liar who relies on the fact most people will accept what he says because hes a pro photographer and a member of the royal society.


Money making liar? Does he make as much money as NASA? Jeez, who has more to gain from telling lies about the Moon landing?

[cruise4]

Bit off Topic but the thread sort of takes it here, I once saw someone say that the moon hoax thing could be proved if NASA would release the co-ordinates of the buggy they left behind? Did any answer to this come forward?

[hagbard_celine]

Bit off Topic but the thread sort of takes it here, I once saw someone say that the moon hoax thing could be proved if NASA would release the co-ordinates of the buggy they left behind? Did any answer to this come forward?


Bill Kaysing (RIP) once challenged the Mount Palomar observatory to train its telescope on the moon and try to spot the LM descent stage, the rover and all the other things the astronauts supposedly left behind, along with their footprints. In the 1999 Channel 4 special for the 30th anniversary of Apollo, the presenter Violet Berlin asks her scientist guest the same question and received a rather evasive, monsylabic answer. He just tuens his head away and mutters "Nah." Surely there are telescopes, especially Hubble that could see these objects on the moon, after all they can see planets a hundred lightyears away.

[hagbard_celine]

But then again, if they took up this challenge and succeeed, how would we know that the telescope pictures were not fake? Even if the telescope pictures could be proved as genuine, how would we know that the artifacts on the moon were real? They could be matchwood models planted ther last year.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

I am not aware that telescopes can see planets hundreds of light years away. They can see star clusters and galaxies spanning millions of light years across from millions of light years away.

That's tantamount to saying you should be able to read a newspaper 200m away just because you can see objects with your eyes like mountains, the moons and stars that are also hundreds of light years away.

To me, your logical lacks total understanding of what telescopes do and see.

Planets (that lie "a hundred light years away") are found by measuring changes in the environments they lay in, not peering at them directly.

[hagbard_celine]

That's tantamount to saying you should be able to read a newspaper 200m away .

Ah yes! I hadn't thought of that. They can! Spy satelites are foumous for it; and a KH spy satelite is really just a Hubble pinting the other way.

Think of what kind of reolution can read 2 inch high letters from 200 miles and exptrapolate that to 250,000 miles. Wouldn't that work out as a resolution good enough to make out the lunar relics?

[deca]

the laser reflector makes me laugh http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html
how did the astronauts line it up? did they have a compass? or use there thumbs?
angle of reflection
http://www.ghostvillage.com/resources/2006/110920063.jpg

[reptilianshapeshifter]

Ah yes! I hadn't thought of that. They can! Spy satelites are foumous for it; and a KH spy satelite is really just a Hubble pinting the other way.

Think of what kind of reolution can read 2 inch high letters from 200 miles and exptrapolate that to 250,000 miles. Wouldn't that work out as a resolution good enough to make out the lunar relics?

No I meant with your naked eye!:D

By your own presumption, the naked eye can see galaxy and star clusters some hundred light years away yet we cannot read a newspaper from 200m.

The hubble telescope isnt taking pictures of star clusters and galaxies that are only a few miles apart! They span massive distances incomprehensible to the human hand.

[joe 90]

Bill Kaysing (RIP) once challenged the Mount Palomar observatory to train its telescope on the moon and try to spot the LM descent stage, the rover and all the other things the astronauts supposedly left behind, along with their footprints. In the 1999 Channel 4 special for the 30th anniversary of Apollo, the presenter Violet Berlin asks her scientist guest the same question and received a rather evasive, monsylabic answer. He just tuens his head away and mutters "Nah." Surely there are telescopes, especially Hubble that could see these objects on the moon, after all they can see planets a hundred lightyears away.

Well that just goes to show how ignorant of the subject Kaysing was.
I saw the 1999 Channel 4 special Berlin asked the question and got the right reply, no. Why you think anyone would be evasive i dont know there's just no need just do the math and then ask yourself is there a telescope that has a mirror that big. Would a telescope with a mirror that big even work in the Earths atmosphere, no. Ask yourself is Hubble appreciably closer to the Moon than we are and the answer is no.

Even if you spotted the hardware it would make no difference you would get from thats a picture over the other end to they put it there using robots yesterday.

[joe 90]

the laser reflector makes me laugh http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html
how did the astronauts line it up? did they have a compass? or use there thumbs?
angle of reflection
http://www.ghostvillage.com/resources/2006/110920063.jpg

Deploying the experiment:


Carried by hand (along with the PSEP on A-11) to the deployment site. The leveling leg, deployed by the astronaut by pulling a pin, provided the proper elevation angle for each site. It was tilted and then rested on the surface using the UHT. It was pointed towards the Earth. The bubble used to level the device on A-11 showed it to be within 0.5 degree of level, with the bubble oriented to the SW. A sun-compass allowed azimuthal alignment of the array with respect to the sun. After these steps, the dust cover was removed. There was no trouble deploying the A-14 or 15 LRRR, either. The operations sequence on A-15 was slightly different, but essentially the same tasks were performed. A typical timeline from A-15 shows ~6 minutes for deploying the experiment.

[joe 90]

Money making liar? Does he make as much money as NASA? Jeez, who has more to gain from telling lies about the Moon landing?

Sorry i was unaware NASA had started to make money, the tax payer will be pleased.

[deca]

The leveling leg, deployed by the astronaut by pulling a pin, provided the proper elevation angle for each site.

How could they know this?
Earth and the Moon is 385,000 kilometers away.If it was not accurately placed then the reflected beam would it not be out by kilometers and I talking less than a millimeters or part of a degree of an angle here. Remember the reflected beam was supposed to be reflected straight back to the source!

Another thing what about the earth`s rotation and wobble and the moons orbit, How often would the ground station on earth be able to use the reflector? would
it be lined up 24/7 every day?

[joe 90]

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html

[deca]

I have just noticed how bright the moon is tonight,well how much sunlight is reflected of it,someday s you can still see the moon in the morning.Would not a laser just reflector of its surface anyway?.how would you know if a laser reflected of it or the surface?

[hagbard_celine]

.
Even if you spotted the hardware it would make no difference you would get from thats a picture over the other end to they put it there using robots yesterday.

Well I didn't want to be the first one to say it!;)

Unfortunately when you're living in a time of Orwell's "universal deceit", where both the capacity and moral justification for lies knows no bounds, then they could just as easily be matchwood models placed up there very recently.

[hagbard_celine]

No I meant with your naked eye!:D

By your own presumption, the naked eye can see galaxy and star clusters some hundred light years away yet we cannot read a newspaper from 200m.

The hubble telescope isnt taking pictures of star clusters and galaxies that are only a few miles apart! They span massive distances incomprehensible to the human hand.

I hope I understand you correctly, Rep.

You're saying that the distance of what you can see is not relevent. The naked eye can see galaxies a million light years away, just like Hubble can. But the thing is you can't make out details of that galaxy. The same goes for the moon. You don't need any sort of optical enhancement device to see the moon; you can even make out significant details without one. But if you look at telelscope shots of the moon, they do give increased detail. Why can't you get more and more detail by increasing thew magnification?

[davidbarstis]

Sorry i was unaware NASA had started to make money, the tax payer will be pleased.

I see, so taking tax payer money isn't making money? Are you that ignorant?

[reptilianshapeshifter]

I hope I understand you correctly, Rep.

You're saying that the distance of what you can see is not relevent. The naked eye can see galaxies a million light years away, just like Hubble can. But the thing is you can't make out details of that galaxy. The same goes for the moon. You don't need any sort of optical enhancement device to see the moon; you can even make out significant details without one. But if you look at telelscope shots of the moon, they do give increased detail. Why can't you get more and more detail by increasing thew magnification?

for the same reason I just said. Yes, the telescopes are going into far more detail but the detail you are looking at is not 3m in width! The detail is millions and millions of light years across. Far away galaxies are not objects the size of a small room.

By the same logic you follow you should be able to magnify objects propped onto the other end of the telescope to optically zoom in like an electron microscope would on the surface of a cup, for example.