Moon landing hoax - Different twist.

[gajinoz]

Here is a place that claims the conspiracy stories about the moon landing being a hoax were probably started, then debunked, by NASA to cover up or divert attention away from the "REAL" conspiracy.

Bit of light entertainment if you're interested in that sort of thing.

 

[komondor]

I've never been into conspiracy theories but, you know, I kinda think these moon-landing conspiracy buffs might be on to something.

If it weren't for the simple, nonvariable fact that, by nature, conspiracies could not exist because no one-- let alone several or hundreds of individuals-- keeps a secret for long, I would believe this one.

We haven't done crap since the early 70s (or so) as far as moon-landings are concerned. It seems odd that we 1st went there 36 yrs ago and haven't done too much since.

I'm not totally convinced. It seems like we have exponentially progressed in everything else since that time, yet "everything else" had nothing to do with Cold War races.

 

[Gollnick]

The big problem with all the Moon Landing Hoax conspiracy theories is that it doesn't take a hugely powerful telescope to look up at the moon and actually see evidence of the landing.

 

[gajinoz]

The big problem with all the Moon Landing Hoax conspiracy theories is that it doesn't take a hugely powerful telescope to look up at the moon and actually see evidence of the landing.

All telescopes made since the first "landing" have a chip secretly planted in them that inserts those images whenever you look at the moon.

 

[gajinoz]

Here's another fun moon conspiracy.

 

[Gollnick]

Most of the larger telescopes in amateur use are actually home-made. I've seen footsteps on the moon through a Dob that one of the guys who comes to the OMSI telescope parties has that's so big he pulls it behind his truck on a trailer. He build it himself.

 

[gajinoz]

Most of the larger telescopes in amateur use are actually home-made. I've seen footsteps on the moon through a Dob that one of the guys who comes to the OMSI telescope parties has that's so big he pulls it behind his truck on a trailer. He build it himself.

Yeah but I bet he's been subverted by the CIA and his scope will have one of the chips in it.

 

[gajinoz]

Hmmmm... looks like Mars is inhabited too. Those pesky aliens get around!

 

[ZOO]

The big problem with all the Moon Landing Hoax conspiracy theories is that it doesn't take a hugely powerful telescope to look up at the moon and actually see evidence of the landing.

What evidence is that, You cant even see any of the flags on the moon,
so it seems that you would not be able to see much of anything else!

The flag on the moon is 125cm (4 feet) long. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see it. The largest telescope now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii at 10meters in diameter. Even the Hubble Space telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter. Resolving the lunar rover, which is 3.1 meters in length, would require a telescope 75 meters in diameter. So our backyard 6 inch and 8 inch telescopes are not even going to come close!


My 2 cents
Zoo

 

[Saunterer]

I've seen footsteps on the moon through a Dob that one of the guys who comes to the OMSI telescope parties has that's so big he pulls it behind his truck on a trailer. He build it himself.

How big and fast was the tracking motor on that?

The moon moves fast in my 4" Newtonian reflector, but I bet the field of view on the above "truck-pulled" scope is crazy.

Plus, if we could see footsteps, flags, landers and Pepsi cans on the moon from Earth; they'd be on the internet by now.

My .07 worth.

 

[JD Mandrell]

I love moon landing stories, my 87 year old grandmother, who was never a conspiracy nut on any other subject, went to her grave in the late 1980's NEVER believing the moon landing was real.

I never understood why she felt that was, but she always thought it was fake.

 

[Larry B.]

As far as moon landing conspiracy theories, they all are BS. We landed on the moon on July 19, 1969 and thats a fact. If you have any doubts ask yourself these three questions.

1-If the landing was a hoax how come the Russians didn't say anything.
2-How is it after 40 years all 100,000 people involved with the Appolo program kept quiet.
3-What about the 100 lbs. of Moon rocks that were returned from the moon and examined by proffessors from universities all over the country.

Television shows that say we never landed on the moon only show evidence to support their theory, even if the evidence they have only represents 5% of all the evidence. They will spend 2 hours just talking about the 5% .Landing on the moon and taking off was relatively easy because of the moons very low gravity. The only thing stopping the Russians from doing it was money not technology.

 

[nenofury]

Most of the larger telescopes in amateur use are actually home-made. I've seen footsteps on the moon through a Dob that one of the guys who comes to the OMSI telescope parties has that's so big he pulls it behind his truck on a trailer. He build it himself.

This guy is playing you. No telescope on this earth exists that could do that. Not even the hubble could do that. The hubble in fact can only make out objects as "small" as 280 feet in diameter.

 

[Gollnick]

It looked pretty good to me.

My little reflector can read the markings on some satellites (which is what I like to look at). As far as I know, the markings are typically about 4 inches high.

 

[Thomason]

Gollnick and Larry B. have been in on the conspiracy since the start. Don't be duped by their slick talk. Trust The Last Confederate's grandmother. She knew, she knew.

 

[mycroftt]

Here is a website owned by a guy I used to work with in New Haven. He has some pretty amazing amateur astro-photography. Very cool pictures of the sun. I like his captions because he describes the equipment and processing he used to produce the pictures.

Editted to add a quote from the fellow who owns the website. You can feel his passion for his subject.

"To view the sun in H-a (Hydrogen-alpha filter) is to have a front row seat to the very dynamics that power the distant stars that fill our night sky... volleys and plumes of super-heated plasma catapulting outwards to be recaptured or forever escaping, in a dance that has spanned countless millenia as the nuclear furnace burns on. " Paul Hyndman

 

[Don Luis]

It looked pretty good to me.

My little reflector can read the markings on some satellites (which is what I like to look at). As far as I know, the markings are typically about 4 inches high.

As far as I know, some artificial satellites are less than 2000 kilometers away, the moon is more than 384000 kilometers away. Also artificial satellites are very stable in their orbits, you can point your satellite TV antenna and don't have to move it around to follow the satellite, the moon is not like that.

Luis

 

[Larry B.]

When the astronats landed on the moon they put an instrument there that we use to bounce laser signals off of. The Hubble telescope cannot pick up any footprints. To say that a 4in. reflector can is ludicrious. A reflector telescope has the worst resolution of any telescope because of the central obstruction. It is the worst kind of telescope to use for planetary or lunar observing.The radio signals picked up from the moon landing by countries all over the world is enough evidence alone.

 

[Gollnick]

Actually, low-earth orbit satellites are in constant motion and tracking is a problem. Many are spin-stabilized too, so the body of the bird is just a blur at best. A lot of LEOs are small too. The joy of LEO is that the launch is cheap... cheap as long as you keep the bird small. Some LEOs are less than a cubic foot. You can't see those with even a big telescope. Both the GlobalStar and Iridium satellites are big enough to see the actual satellite. Iridiums can be seen with the naked eye frequently. Due to their unique solar panels, they make a very unique flash called an Iridium Flare. This has been studied and characterized to the point that there's now software you can download that actually predicts when and where visible flares will occure with remarkable accuracy.

The others where you can sometimes get a good look are highly eliptical orbit birds. At perigee, some of these get very close. But they're typically moving very fast and unless perigee will be directly overhead, they'll be very blurry.

Satellite TV uses geostationary satellites. As high up as they are and as small as these birds actually are, they can be seen with my telescope as just a sort of elongated rod. You'll initially say it's a big, bright star. But if you look closely you'll see that it's more of a rectangle or rod than a point as a star would be.

There are some really big geos that you can start to see shape on with my telescope, some of the Telestar birds.

I can see Hubble and make out it's distincitive shape. Of course the ISS can be seen pretty distinctly, but it's huge. This is another one that you can see with the unaided eye.

And then there's the Keyholes, the largest birds in the sky (excepting ISS). I'm told they're the size of railroad cars. But, because of how they're painted (flatter than flat black) and don't apparently have much solar cell capacity, they're very hard to see. All I've ever seen is sort of an outline. These are spy satellites. Nobody (at least who'll talk about it) knows much about what goes on on them.

 

[A.W.U.K.]

When the astronats landed on the moon they put an instrument there that we use to bounce laser signals off of. The Hubble telescope cannot pick up any footprints. To say that a 4in. reflector can is ludicrious. A reflector telescope has the worst resolution of any telescope because of the central obstruction. It is the worst kind of telescope to use for planetary or lunar observing.The radio signals picked up from the moon landing by countries all over the world is enough evidence alone.

Several good points there.

Andy