malibu wrote:

Are our corner reflectors distinguishable from the Russians'?
Can we visualize these objects you claim are there?
John

If you were led into a room filled with experts in both ground based
telescopes AND experts managing the Hubble telescope, AND each team
trained their equipment on to the lunar surface, AND, with you watching,
taking notes and observing in as much detail as you'd like - each team
focused on the surface and resolved an image of the American flag, in
exactly the position "everyone" said it would be found -

Would you accept it as proof?

If not, what would you accept as proof? Would it take you to personally
stand on the lunar surface, or does your concept of scientific proof
extend beyond your fingertips?

Dear malibu:

"malibu" wrote in message
oups.com...
....
Are our corner reflectors distinguishable from the
Russians'?

By location. We know where ours were placed, we know where
theirs were placed. The laser "spot" that is bounced off the
Moon is only a few km wide when it hits where the reflectors are
located.

Can we visualize these objects you claim are there?

How does shining a light on the Moon and detecting the reflection
differ from what you are asking?

David A. Smith

On Jul 8, 8:29 pm, TMG wrote:
malibu wrote:
Are our corner reflectors distinguishable from the Russians'?
Can we visualize these objects you claim are there?
John

If you were led into a room filled with experts in both ground based
telescopes AND experts managing the Hubble telescope, AND each team
trained their equipment on to the lunar surface, AND, with you watching,
taking notes and observing in as much detail as you'd like - each team
focused on the surface and resolved an image of the American flag, in
exactly the position "everyone" said it would be found -

Would you accept it as proof?

If not, what would you accept as proof? Would it take you to personally
stand on the lunar surface, or does your concept of scientific proof
extend beyond your fingertips?

Is proof visual anymore?
I have seen film footage of that flag fluttering
in a sudden breeze.
Several times.
What is that all about?

Do you really believe we sent people
through the Van Allen belts with no radiation
protection to speak of and they are
still happy and healthy?

Why do I have footage of Neil Armstrong in
LEO, with Earthshine flooding in the window,
at the same time as he is claiming on the radio
to be nearing the moon? Why won't he talk to
anyone about the moon?

Nobody is going to visualize that flag-
because it isn't there. And neither are the footprints.

Politics is more important than
Science or Healthcare, my friend. We are
being lied to as a matter of course. Just hope
you aren't working at the next WTC they
decide to "pull".

John

In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley

wrote
on Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:11:26 GMT
2Xfki.4116$Xa3.577@attbi_s22:
wrote:


As for the lunar retroflectors, how did the Russians get theirs up
there? Retroflectors on the moon only prove there are retroflectors on
the moon and the Russians proved you don't need a manned lunar mission
to deploy them.



Not only did we send a dozen humans to the surface of the moon, but
the landers, buggies, equipment and foot prints are still there! You
can even bounce lasers of the corner reflectors.

This is not proof that we were on the moon.

[1] Granted, I for one believe we did send at least
24[*] people (12 of whom set foot on Luna) in the Moon's
general vicinity, and there's plenty of evidence from
amateur astronomers and ham radio operators of something
in flight during the time intervals involved -- though
they may not have always known what they were looking at
or listening to. But all of this -- at monstrous cost,
admittedly -- could have been faked. (Why is an interesting
question; it makes more sense just to send them up there,
given our predilection to be explorers, than to set up a
vast conspiracy to fake a trip to the moon using sound
stages, fake rocks, and .)

[2] There is no proof the landers, buggies, equipment, and
such is still there, unless there's a camera sending back
a signal from Luna back to Earth that is still operational
(and that's not proof either, as such a signal can in
fact be faked as well). I for one have my doubts on
said operationability of the camera in 2007, since it was
sent up there in 1969. Of course it would be logical to
assume the stuff is still up there; it's extra payload,
after all -- payload that is better used for samples.

[3] The Russians deposited their reflectors via automated
rovers. It is possible for the US to have done the same
back then -- although in fact we did not. But the
fact that we can bounce signals off the reflectors is
not proof.

[4] The moon rocks are in a number of safes somewhere;
absent scientific credentials I for one would not be able
to access them. (They were also given out as gifts to
other countries; presumably they are now in *their* safes.)

So how do we prove that we were up there on Luna to
Brad Guth? Possibly the only method that might work
is dumping him up there and letting him see for himself
the rovers, landers, and other such stuff. (Of course
I'd send him up there with a space suit, and a way back.
I'm nasty but not vicious. :-) )

Then he gets to prove it to the other skeptics. :-)

This is assuming we don't boost a telescope to low earth orbit
with sufficient resolving power to see the flag dropped by
Apollo 11. (That would take some doing. A resolution of 2.6
picoradians or 107 nanoarcseconds would be necessary, in order
to resolve features 1mm on the lunar surface. The best the
Hubble can do is 100 milliarcseconds, which means Hubble
could see features about 1 km in size. It might be able
to photograph the plume left by each lander by its rockets,
but it might be hard to see.)
[*] Apollo 13 didn't make it to the Moon's surface,
and IIRC Apollo 10 circumnavigated Luna for a LEM-CM
linkup test.

--
#191,
Linux makes one use one's mind.
Windows just messes with one's head.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Jul 8, 2:31 pm, Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
wrote:
I was nine years old during the alleged landing, and
I still believe; see Bucky's _Critical Path_ exegesis on the
technological arch,
which certainly includes film & television.

another ponderable hoax would be,
what if men are *still* on Moon, only
"they" are not televizing it too regularly?

I believe that this may be the substratum
to a lot of Dick Hoagland's schtick with the Face on Mars,
Domes on Moon, Howitzers (tm) in the Rover pix etc.;
a kind of pleading to get your telescope out, and look,
a la the Harry Potter weekly astronomy class.

even better, to construt your own scope (but
the algorithm to do that, that used to be on The New Federalist
website ain't there,
no mo .-)

if the Wright Bros. hadn't understood _The Bicycle Wheel_
(by Jobst Brand), they would never have flown ****.

One has to wonder, if almost all of the worlds population including
the supposed "intelligent" few in the scientific community believe the
complete myth that man landed on the moon 7 times just 40 years ago,
what other commonly held beliefs are also complete lies? Is the whole
historical record nothing but mere mythology?

thus:
as shown in _The Bicycle Wheel_,
the spokes act as columns, however that actually works
on a turning wheel under a rider if not maximally
when the spoke is closest to the ground,
due to great prestressing (or some thing .-)

I would consider bicycle spokes purely tensile, though certainly spokes
could serve as compression elements in a tensegrity model carefully

thus:
mine is a lot simpler & analogous
to the trilateral ineq.
(we uncovered this in a Buckafka Fullofit maillist,
which has since been made more private;
one of the correspondents spent some hours
to derive it by programming,
which was kinda strange .-)...
I am still not sure,
how many sets of the the basic tetrahedral inequality,
it has to satisfy, but probably six.

thus:
ah, this looks like a good exercise
for comprehending "absolute value" function,
as well as of the trilateral inequality....

| x - y | = | |x| - |y| |
means these two things:
| x - y | = |x| - |y|
| x - y | = |y| - |x|

thus:
in Sudan, Iran and possibly all other once and
future British quagmires.... Belize, Canada, Trinidad
AND Tobago; when we get there,
be sure to ask if it's more than one country, and
did we miss Trinidad andOR Tobago?http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...es/2007/05/01/

pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military? mode=PF

thus:
look, up in the sky -- it's Googoltude (TM) ?!?http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf

--n~nerfman~n!

Hard drugs?

On Jul 8, 6:47 pm, malibu wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:11 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

wrote:

As for the lunar retroflectors, how did the Russians get theirs up
there? Retroflectors on the moon only prove there are retroflectors on
the moon and the Russians proved you don't need a manned lunar mission
to deploy them.

Not only did we send a dozen humans to the surface of the moon, but
the landers, buggies, equipment and foot prints are still there! You
can even bounce lasers of the corner reflectors.

Are our corner reflectors distinguishable from the Russians'?
Can we visualize these objects you claim are there?
John

It was a mutually perpetrated cold-war.

Get it?
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 9, 4:14 am, BradGuth wrote:

"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

And he who controls the present controls the past.

On Jul 8, 10:21 pm, malibu wrote:
On Jul 8, 8:29 pm, TMG wrote:





malibu wrote:
Are our corner reflectors distinguishable from the Russians'?
Can we visualize these objects you claim are there?
John

If you were led into a room filled with experts in both ground based
telescopes AND experts managing the Hubble telescope, AND each team
trained their equipment on to the lunar surface, AND, with you watching,
taking notes and observing in as much detail as you'd like - each team
focused on the surface and resolved an image of the American flag, in
exactly the position "everyone" said it would be found -

Would you accept it as proof?

If not, what would you accept as proof? Would it take you to personally
stand on the lunar surface, or does your concept of scientific proof
extend beyond your fingertips?

Is proof visual anymore?
I have seen film footage of that flag fluttering
in a sudden breeze.
Several times.
What is that all about?

Do you really believe we sent people
through the Van Allen belts with no radiation
protection to speak of and they are
still happy and healthy?

Why do I have footage of Neil Armstrong in
LEO, with Earthshine flooding in the window,
at the same time as he is claiming on the radio
to be nearing the moon? Why won't he talk to
anyone about the moon?

Nobody is going to visualize that flag-
because it isn't there. And neither are the footprints.

Politics is more important than
Science or Healthcare, my friend. We are
being lied to as a matter of course. Just hope
you aren't working at the next WTC they
decide to "pull".

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

When has our government ever not lied to us?

Of course we haven't walked on the moon. Where's Venus?

Besides, those Apollo colors and and factors of color saturation are
entirely wrong, and besides, we still have no such fly-by-rocket
landers, or much less rad-hard astronauts.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 7, 4:52 pm, bz wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote innews:lcEji.1325$Xa3.1188@attbi_s22:

I already use such software. Like I said, too bad sufficiently bright
objects (within the dynamic range of the films used) weren't in the
image field. The fact is they were not.

We are waiting,BradGuth, for you to cite credible data to the
contrary. I would just love you to prove me wrong with credible data,
Guth!

This months Skeptical Enquirer has a good article showing images of some
stars in UV photos taken on a moon mission.

The earth is also in the UV photos.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.



There was quite a great amount of UV energy available on our moon.

Unfortunately, those unfiltered cameras recorded none of it.

Where's Venus?
-
Brad Guth

On 8 jul, 21:48, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 8, 11:26 am, Tonico wrote:

...........................
historical record nothing but mere mythology?

"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth-

************************************************
Hey, hellooooo! And what happened to the usual zionist jewish hokus-
pokus demonish shmonish ramble??
Are you beginning to like jews?? Oy vey!!!!!
One can´t trust fundie nazi-racist antisemites anymore...**sigh**
Regards
Tonio- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's your problem?

Most of the Jews I know of are smart and wouldn't so much as hurt a
Muslim fly.

The still alive and kicking Third Reich (aka Skull and Bones and
Zionism) is exactly what it is. You've got actual proof otherwise?
-
Brad Guth-
**************************************************
You talk nonsense about skull, bones, third reichs and zionism hokus
pokus....and you ask proof OTHERWISE from me???
Excuse my hungarian, but LOL...DD)
I have as much proof "otherwise" from your rather feverish, moronical,
unbased and sick claims as you have that purple winged dragons DO NOT
dwell in the Amazonas basin and eat little pink seraphines...)
Regards
Tonio