I’m not sure how a dedicated CTer would read it, but reading back your comments I’m amazed at my own blind spots - I was focussing on semantics like ‘they didn’t prove my theory is untrue’ but missed the really fantastic parts
I wonder how much nonsense it takes for the crowd on some CT message board to criticisie a poster for illogical or unscientific reasoning …
Note: I removed a number of posts by a troll who has since been banned plus the replies to them.
But… Butt… Buttt… Those surely must have been the funnest posts of all!
This is from another thread, thought it needed to be shared here …
No, they were stupid and inane. (Who’d a thunk it.)
Careful with talk of those cross-hairs. There are a number of photos out there that supposedly show items “in front” of the cross-hairs, which would be impossible if the cross-hairs were permanently etched into the camera… The cross-hairs are supposed to be on top of everything in a photograph (at least according to some guy who supposedly worked at Hasselblad.)
Of course, since I have not personally seen the original photos, I would not know how you could prove the “proof of hoax” photos were actually authentic.
My biggest question has been the Van Allen belt. How did the astronauts not get zapped with serious radiation? Is there a way to get through the VAB safely? I read something somewhere about the space shuttle always orbited underneath the VAB, and other than the Apollo missions, nothing manned has ever gone through.
Anyone know about the VAB, and if this was (and still would be) a major hurdle?
Do you have a cite for this? I have never heard that anything can see what was left on the moon. I don’t know if Hubble has ever been pointed there, but if anything COULD see on the lunar surface, I would think it would be Hubble.
A quick search found this on the Cornell University website:
This article states that Hubble can’t do it. I don’t know the original date of the article, but there is a note indicating it was updated in 2015.
I would love to know what “high end hobbyist models” could pull this off… I don’t know much about telescopes, but if there is one that can now do this, and I can buy it, I want it!
The 2015 update mentions a NASA project called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which was launched in 2009. This was supposed to photograph each of the Apollo landing sites, and the pictures taken with this are not very detailed. The best picture that I saw from the LRO (and I only looked at a few) was of the Apollo 11 site. If anyone believes NASA faked the moon landings, I don’t believe these pictures will change their minds.
There is a special link to the Apollo 11 landing site picture, which is why I assumed it was the best one the LRO took. I am going to go to the NASA site and look at all the pictures they have uploaded from the LRO and see if there is a better picture.
My assumption would be that Hubble would be terrible for this, given the proximity of the moon to Hubble. I mean, you’ve used a camera before, right? And you’ve noticed how, unless you are using specifically a macro lens, anything near the camera will be terribly out of focus unless you step back far enough, right? That would be my assumption with Hubble.
Well, it looks like the Hubble can actually focus on the moon, much to my surprise. Its linear resolution for the moon surface is 43 meters, though, according to this.
I’ve seen Apollo photos where an extremely bright object has bloomed to wipe out the cross marks, but this is a well-understood effect. Is that what you’re talking about? If an object is really bright, the film right behind a cross mark can still be exposed by the light hitting the film immediately adjacent to it.
You seemed to be surprised because you thought the Moon would be too close to focus on, but if an object’s distance is much much greater than the size of the lens, then it will be basically like focusing at infinity. The Moon is so far from the Hubble, compared to the Hubble’s aperture, that it’s no different focusing on it or on the Andromeda Galaxy.
Yes. That’s right.
Probably… I am not up on the particulars. I just remembered seeing some photos a long time ago with the crosshairs that looked as if they were “behind” an object in the photograph. These have been used to question the legitimacy of the photos (and I presume the landings).
Here is one of the photos I remembered. Quick google search and found it on wiki. But if I remember correctly, there are a number of these examples.
Bob Braeunig crunched the numbers for Apollo 11 here. Basically they avoided the highest radiation areas, and passed through the belt quickly. VAB radiation isn’t some deadly thing that will zap you in an instant - it’s a function of time and intensity. The astronauts had dosimeters, and none of them were exposed to dangerous amounts. However, deep space radiation would become an issue for long missions, eg to Mars. You have to remember that the longest Apollo mission spent less than two weeks in space.
As for the crosshairs, a lot of the apparently “hidden” crosses are artifacts of bad quality scans. If you look at the original prints, or even high-res scans, you can often see them (although some may be hidden by emulsion bleeding in the brightest areas).
For example the one shown just above was AS11-40-5927. Look how blown out the highlights are.
A decent scan shows far more detail, including the crosshairs.
(I highly recommend the Project Apollo Archive on Flickr, BTW. Truly fascinating and inspiring stuff.)
