PaperModelers.com

Go Back   PaperModelers.com > Papermodelers' Bar and Grill > The CardBoard Lounge

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 07-17-2017, 07:03 PM
Pixelpusher Pixelpusher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 191
Total Downloaded: 0
I am part of an event group and unbeknownst to me, one of the group is a firm believer in pretty much every crackpot conspiracy in existence. From flat earth to faked moon landing. I spend hours of travel time cooped up with him and his wacky ideas. Working in engineering and knowing the basics just drives me crazy when he says science is bunk.

I would pay cash to have access to a telescope to see the items on the moon. The only problem is that he would more than likely just say all the items in the landing zone are rocks.
__________________
"perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away" - Antoine de Saint Exupéry
  #32  
Old 10-24-2017, 03:02 AM
Modeller Modeller is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 201
Total Downloaded: 9.67 MB
Just check Van Allen belt radiation ratio. That's just will be enought. Even now they don't know and even if, will have no power to send such a big thick walled spaceship to prevent the radiation that is just enormous out there for an every living cell.

NASA moon is fake.
__________________
paperdesigners.ucoz.ru
Best seen with "Uran Web Browser" becouse it cuts that damb adds from ucoz
  #33  
Old 10-24-2017, 05:49 AM
JohnGay JohnGay is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Melbourne, Florida
Posts: 481
Total Downloaded: 426.34 MB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelpusher View Post
I am part of an event group and unbeknownst to me, one of the group is a firm believer in pretty much every crackpot conspiracy in existence. From flat earth to faked moon landing. I spend hours of travel time cooped up with him and his wacky ideas. Working in engineering and knowing the basics just drives me crazy when he says science is bunk.

I would pay cash to have access to a telescope to see the items on the moon. The only problem is that he would more than likely just say all the items in the landing zone are rocks.
You can't make a telescope powerful enough to actually see the landers on the moon from Earth.
But NASA now has pictures from Lunar satellites of the landing sights and those have only been dismissed by the same conspiracy believers.
  #34  
Old 10-24-2017, 06:34 AM
Modeller Modeller is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 201
Total Downloaded: 9.67 MB
But when NASA Explore other Galaxies they provide the superb photos. Can read newspapers from the earth orbit far away, big deal, even with presence of atmosphere no problem, but can provide from the 50 km away from moon orbit with super cool satelite the landing module, they say and give it as 7x7 pixels in size. AND. Even then can not calculate the right size how there black&white Photoshop should look like when in this resolution, and how it should look like. And should looks like a bunch of pixels far to be destiguished like anything. But there is a sharp platform on the photos. With those 7x7 pixels. But more over. They give the wrong platform dimentions to the scale that is declared ))))


U know there is undeniable proof how NY WTC 9/11 were demolished. Dustified with all its content. Literary. You can see it with no problem. Check the DR. Judy Wood Dustification.
But there those who continue to "support" the ofiicial media story..... All the same here.
__________________
paperdesigners.ucoz.ru
Best seen with "Uran Web Browser" becouse it cuts that damb adds from ucoz

Last edited by Modeller; 10-24-2017 at 06:52 AM.
  #35  
Old 10-24-2017, 07:25 AM
ContourCraig's Avatar
ContourCraig ContourCraig is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 83
Total Downloaded: 97.35 MB
Were the moon landings fake? Is the earth flat?

For the second question, the answer depends. It depends if you ask that question before or after the build !
__________________
For best results, avoid doing stupid things.
Google Adsense
  #36  
Old 10-24-2017, 07:48 AM
Modeller Modeller is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 201
Total Downloaded: 9.67 MB
What build ContourCraig?

Deprive please with this flat u know. The wrong adress.

This is created, apparently, to grab all the other what they call "conspiracy", and lead to what you can guess. But still onother :*?:*% from them.
__________________
paperdesigners.ucoz.ru
Best seen with "Uran Web Browser" becouse it cuts that damb adds from ucoz
  #37  
Old 10-25-2017, 08:04 PM
Deriachai Deriachai is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 230
Total Downloaded: 99.75 MB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modeller View Post
But when NASA Explore other Galaxies they provide the superb photos. Can read newspapers from the earth orbit far away, big deal, even with presence of atmosphere no problem, but can provide from the 50 km away from moon orbit with super cool satelite the landing module, they say and give it as 7x7 pixels in size. AND. Even then can not calculate the right size how there black&white Photoshop should look like when in this resolution, and how it should look like. And should looks like a bunch of pixels far to be destiguished like anything. But there is a sharp platform on the photos. With those 7x7 pixels. But more over. They give the wrong platform dimentions to the scale that is declared ))))


U know there is undeniable proof how NY WTC 9/11 were demolished. Dustified with all its content. Literary. You can see it with no problem. Check the DR. Judy Wood Dustification.
But there those who continue to "support" the ofiicial media story..... All the same here.
NASA doesn't have telescopes that can "read newspapers from earth orbit". Galaxys are big, hence why we can get good pictures of them. Also the angular motion of orbit affects an image of a galaxy much less than trying to take a picture of the ground.

Also, re the Moon landings. On top of 2830000 kg of propellant, the astronauts were sure going somewhere.

I am not even going to address your other inanities.
  #38  
Old 10-25-2017, 09:05 PM
airdave's Avatar
airdave airdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario Canada
Posts: 14,246
Total Downloaded: 257.44 MB
I've seen similar articles, but this one is relavent, I think....
When you look up at a full moon, just remember that somewhere on the lunar face, the remains of Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 along with 8 unmanned Russian Luna missions and 5 pre-Apollo unmanned American surveyor missions are all still there….. silently looking back….. unless of course you’re a NASA non-believer.

so… why can’t we see these from the earth, why can’t we train our best telescopes on to the moon’s surface and see them there exactly where we left them the best part of 50 years ago.

Well, there a bit of a problem…. and that is that the moon is 384,000 kilometres or 238,000 miles away and the landers and all the other things left behind are just few meters across.

To give you an Idea how difficult a problems that it is….. it’s like looking for an object the size of a coin from 1000 miles away or the equivalent from New York to Florida…. so you going to need a pretty serious telescope.



One telescope that springs to mind is the Hubble space telescope, after all if it can see galaxy’s billions of light years away then it should be able to see the Apollo landers easily…. shouldn’t it ??

Well, as with many things to do with space it’s not that simple. Yes, the Hubble space telescope was indeed designed to look at very faint objects at astronomical distances but those objects are clusters of galaxy’s trillions of millions across, it was not designed the take high-resolution images of small objects at fairly close ranges in astronomical terms like to the moon.

The problem is down to the resolution of the images that the telescope can produce and that is limited by the laws of physics. The resolution determines the size the smallest Picture Element is or pixel in the image. The higher the resolution more of the fine detail in an image can be seen.

In a telescope, the bigger the mirror, the more the magnification, so the closer the object will appear but at the very large magnifications the image is also affected by the wavelength of the light itself. The shorter the wavelength like ultraviolet light, the finer the detail that can be captured and the resolution increases but invisible light as we go from blue through green to red, the wavelength increases and the resolution is decreased.

The Hubble has a mirror which is 2.4 meters in diameter, that was the largest that could fit in to the Space Shuttle when it was placed in to orbit. This gives it a single pixel resolution in ultraviolet light of about 43 meters across on the moon’s surface, anything smaller than 43 meters across will just be hidden in a single dot which cannot be resolved any further, in fact we need really 2 pixels or more to make out anything at all.

In visible light, it’s even worse and the size of area covered by a single pixel increasing to 90 meters. The only way we are going to see objects a few meters across on the lunar surface is to either increase the size of the mirror or get closer to the object you looking at.

Back on earth, the current largest optical telescope in the world is GTC on the canary islands with a mirror diameter of 10.4 meters. This increase’s the resolution so that the smallest area covered by one pixel would be 20 meters across in visible light, still too big to see the apollo lander which is just over 4 meters across.

In fact to see the Apollo landers from earth you need a telescope with a mirror size 10 times that of the GTC or about 100 meters across and that does not yet exist. Even then a 100 meter telescope would only give you a 2 meter resolution coverage, so the lander would be 2 pixels in visible light and 4 pixels in ultraviolet light, still not enough to discern any real detail.

This is the reason why we have been unable to the see any of the vehicles on the moon from earth and although in theory it is possible to use a group of telescopes in an array to get a higher resolution, no one has yet don’t it because telescope time is in very high demand and very limited and looking for objects that we know exist is not a high priority just to disprove the none believers.

What we need is to put a camera in orbit around the moon, just like the spy satellites and the ones which give us satellite mapping services like google earth for example.

In 2009 that’s exactly what happened when the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter or LRO was launched to photograph and survey the moon from a distance of between 12 and 100 miles above its surface.

Even with a much smaller camera lens, at its closest passes, it has a resolution of just 0.5 meters or 18 inches per pixel, so now all of the Apollo sites with the lunar landers and rovers as well as the Russian sites can be seen for the first time since they landed.

It shows the trails left in the lunar dust by the astronauts both on foot and in the lunar rovers. The science experiments that where left there over 44 years ago are still visible and even the shadows of the American flags can be seen as they vary in size with the changing position of the sun during the lunar day.

We can’t see the flags themselves because they are hanging vertically and the camera is looking from a top down position and the flags are just a fraction on an inch thick.

It’s not just NASA’s LRO which doing this, the Indians and Chinese also have the own satellites doing the same.

So now we have the photographic evidence of the Apollo landers, unless of course you don’t believe anything official out of NASA and that they were placed the by robotic landers or aliens years later or the moon is a hologram and the earth is flat.
__________________
SUPPORT ME PLEASE: PaperModelShop
Or, my models at ecardmodels: Dave'sCardCreations
  #39  
Old 10-26-2017, 12:38 AM
Modeller Modeller is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 201
Total Downloaded: 9.67 MB
Of course, of course)
"NASA doesn't have telescopes". So then it only must be Russians) Sory.

Don't want to mess fellas.
A person, not envolved in it & e.t.c. understands what is what. Undeniable.
China? Do the same job right. They lie) That's there job.


https://youtu.be/yHv4BscHyVM

(https://youtu.be/whV0kZN2K88
https://youtu.be/8DIioSjFHxE)

Tell us please. Do you believe in official story of 9/11? Thats a question, not if the earth is flat, on the ContourCraig's style he probe. U've got the point of what is meant).
__________________
paperdesigners.ucoz.ru
Best seen with "Uran Web Browser" becouse it cuts that damb adds from ucoz

Last edited by Modeller; 10-26-2017 at 01:31 AM.
  #40  
Old 10-26-2017, 05:22 AM
JohnGay JohnGay is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Melbourne, Florida
Posts: 481
Total Downloaded: 426.34 MB
Easiest explanation why the moon landing weren't faked:
The government that would have to keep the secret of faked moon landings is the same government that kept Watergate a secret.
QED.
Google Adsense
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Parts of this site powered by vBulletin Mods & Addons from DragonByte Technologies Ltd. (Details)
Copyright © 2007-2023, PaperModelers.com