Hammer and Feather:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
Plus, more importantly, The Russians would have been all over the telemetry data for the missions, and if they thought there was half a chance of it being faked would have been shouting about it from the highest rooftops at the time!
Through which media? Reading a book might just show more sides to an argument.
Who said anything about 'media' ? I said : "I also try to pay attention to what is happening around me."
I'm reminded of how when once confronted by a ranting intellectual trot from the SWP, I pointed out to him that I had learnt my politics from reading my payslips, not by going down to the library and reading books.
There are other ways of gaining knowledge apart from reading books. Including real life experiences, and talking to real life people. I have also attended many meetings which have included many debates and discussions, and have heard many public speakers. Plus I have known people whom I consider to have been great teachers to me, amongst them was my one time political mentor and UCATT regional organiser. And yes, as I have already pointed out, I do read news items, articles, pamphlets, etc.
I am not seeking answers to political riddles and conundrums - I went on my journey of discovery many years ago. And I feel fully satisfied with the conclusions which I came to. As I have mentioned on a previous thread, I believe that the tools which I learnt to use, have enabled me to analyse many issues and think freely for myself - politics really isn't that complex.
I am sure that Andrew Cockburn is an excellent author who has done a great deal of research on the wide and varied topics which he covers in his various books. However, I do not feel a I need to read a book in which he outlines his own conclusions, before I can come to mine. After all he didn't need to read a book written by me, before coming to his conclusions.
I don't enjoy reading books, but I don't believe my views are any less valid because of that fact. Indeed seven, I would suggest that you are a 'supercilious tw4t' if you feel that those who don't read books, somehow don't understand all the arguments. Presumably you feel the 800 million people in the World (which is the majority living in poverty) who are illiterate, have no right to any sort of political opinion at all.
btw, I have no problem whatsoever in 'realising that I'm just one of the sheep'. I simply insist on the right of choosing my own shepherd.
I went on my journey of discovery many years ago. And I feel fully satisfied with the conclusions which I came to.
So nowadays you have a closed mind?
Pretty much so aracer. As I said : I feel fully satisfied with the conclusions which I came to.
I am of course prepared, to an extent, to listen to what others with opposing views, have to say - but there is no chance at all of me changing my fundamental views. Those views are quite incorruptible. I am very pleased to say.
That at least makes you more honest than most people.
And one of the reasons why I don't take arguing politics too seriously aracer. Because I am fully aware that most people, like me, have already decided before the argument even starts. Although they might not admit to it.
Did you hear the classic moment on R2 on Saturday mid-morning?
They had a 30 minute (?) chat with the Greek documentary film maker who filmed the whole thing from Mission control and around the launch pad etc.
When the show was completed and the presenter was handing over to Sandi Toskvig (?) said presenter asked Sandi where she’d been that memorable day.
“Holding Neil Armstrong’s secretary’s hand in Mission control, of course”
No believing her, Sandi had to explain why this was the case, only for the interviewer to end up asking why he’d spend so much time and money interviewing the Greek docu’ maker when the BBC’s own travel journo’, and next up on the airways hadn’t been interviewed for a lot less hassle!
It was priceless!
Can anyone recommend some tyres for light trail centre use around the Sea of Tarnquility/Serenity?. The conditions are usually dusty/cheesy with some rocks.
There was a moon landings denier on R4 this morning, along with somebody to argue with him. I only caught the end of it but was a bit disappointed that it just seemed to be the same old "Look, the flag's moving!" stuff. I guess there really is no talking to some people.
(mr MC posting)
>Graham S said;
>Even Hubble doesn't come close to having a large enough telescope to resolve an image of the rover - never mind the frickin tyre marks
dont be so sure. I'm NOT into conspiracy theories, but I went to a lecture given by a MOD bloke, and as an aside he mentioned that the reason why the problem with the aberrations from the distorted mirror was solved so quickly was that they had made two mirrors. And the other one was on a satellite not looking "outwards"...
To be honest it beggars belief that so much money would be spent on a technological development with an obvious military application, without that application being exploited.
dont be so sure. I'm NOT into conspiracy theories, but I went to a lecture given by a MOD bloke, and as an aside he mentioned that the reason why the problem with the aberrations from the distorted mirror was solved so quickly was that they had made two mirrors. And the other one was on a satellite not looking "outwards"...
Would it be any good though? Intuitively it seems like something designed to look at stuff light years away would be rubbish for looking at stuff very close up.
What's your point exactly, M-c? You do realise that Hubble is over 600 times as far away from the moon as from the earth, so if it could resolve the rover it would be able to resolve <1cm objects on earth, and despite popular belief they can't actually read newspapers from space.
More conspiracy (not my opinion!)
Intuitively it seems like something designed to look at stuff light years away would be rubbish for looking at stuff very close up.
dont be so sure
I'm sure! Unless those cunning military scientists have somehow broken several fundamental laws of optics and physics then there is no way they have anything big enough to clearly see the rover from Low Earth Orbit.
Given that we can see the International Space Station in orbit with the naked eye, and that is only 73x108m then I'm pretty sure we'd notice a top secret satellite with a mirror that was 25 kilometres in diameter!
It's all made up - set was built on the moors above Bacup then filmed through a big telescope from Todmorden Astronomy centre. The first moon rover was built using running gear from a mk1 1275 Mini Cooper,20 rolls of Bacofoil (turkey size) + really small tractor tyres. Look closely on the photos + you can just see part of the Cooper badge.
Another one to disprove the theory, how convenient that the tapes should be 'lost' 
http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/07/20/backup-plan-nasa-moon-landings/
tom why have they mispelt bacup /backup in that link?
Junkyard - Member
tom why have they mispelt bacup /backup in that link?
Similar accounts from Minisport up in Padiham. Had to fit really small tractor tyres to 10" minilite wheels.
The following aerial photo - just off the Bacup road shows the lunar surface:-
Lunar Surface Bacup
>Graham S said
>mirror that was 25 kilometres in diameter!
are you tripping?! Or just really flimsy on basic dimensions, let alone the basic rules of optics and physics (PhD and 5 years postdoc research in electron microscopy so have some vague idea about optics since you brought it up).
The Hubble's primary mirror is 2.4 meters in diameter. 25 km, how TF did they get that into space?
And one of the reasons why I don't take arguing politics too seriously aracer. Because I am fully aware that most people, like me, have already decided before the argument even starts.
There's no arguing with that!
PhD and 5 years postdoc research in electron microscopy so have some vague idea about optics since you brought it up
Splendid. Well done you. And yet, despite that fine education, you still seem to be suggesting that I'm wrong and that Hubble (or some other secret sattelite) should be able to see the rover. Try applying your PhD to these figures:
A telescope's angular resolution (ignoring the muddying effects of Earth's atmosphere) is limited by the diffraction of light in the optics. This diffraction limit depends linearly on the telescope's aperture so that at visible wavelengths the resolution is about 14.1/D arcseconds where D is the aperture of the telescope in centimeters. For the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in low Earth orbit whose mirror is 2.4 metres (7.9 ft) across, the diffraction limited angular resolution is about 0.059 arcseconds which corresponds to about 110 metres (360 ft) at the distance of the Moon. In order to resolve an object 1 meter across into a single fuzzy spot would require a telescope 110 times larger than the HST, or about 250 metres (820 ft) across. But to resolve such an object with enough detail to recognize what the object is would require perhaps 100 times more resolution still, or a telescope whose aperture is some 25 kilometres (16 mi) across. Additionally, any ground-based telescope would have to mitigate against the effects of seeing, beyond what is currently possible with adaptive optics.
I never said the mooted spy satellite was looking at the moon or that it CUOLD resolve the rover, I said, in the context of conspiracy theories, that such a thing existed and was looking "downwards" ie. towards the earth. I do happen to believe that is the case, and I think thats how/why they solved the spherical aberration problem so quickly.
Your post
"I'm pretty sure we'd notice a top secret satellite with a mirror that was 25 kilometres in diameter"
reads as you suggesting/believing that the mirror in the HST was 25km across. Your cut-and-paste suggests that is the required theoretical diameter which I assume is where you got the figure from, and you weren't in fact suggesting the HST was so vast. I've re-read the sentence and thats still how it reads to me. The joys of the tinterweb.
Yes, whereas you saying:
>Graham S said;
>Even Hubble doesn't come close to having a large enough telescope to resolve an image of the rover - never mind the frickin tyre marksdont be so sure.
reads a lot like you're not so sure that Hubble isn't big enough to see the rover.
And incidentally, it took them twelve years to fully correct the error with the lens (Hubble was launched in 1990 and the COSTAR correction was required till 2002).
"dont be so sure" as in a conspirational "Aha, but...."
seems we're arguing about nothing, other than the difference between "what the writer implies and what the reader infers".
Still, when the new lunar orbiter gets there its high resolution camera will be able to resolve object sizes down to approx two meters, so will be able to pick up the landing sites. Of course, any pics coming back will have had the landing site photoshopped in by the poor bugger crammed into the orbiter with a MacBook Pro and Adobe CS 4.
You mean like these, taken by the Lunar Recon Orbiter last week?
oooooh its interesting when its something you know nothing about
Thanks Graham, I had a look for those and was trying to link but my edit timed out.
Here's the original article:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10289551-239.html
I'm sure RB's conspiracy would have these pics covered. Where is he when you need him most, eh?
I'm sure RB's conspiracy would have these pics covered. Where is he when you need him most, eh?
Under sedation I hope ............ how mad are those eyes ffs ?
But if you miss that much, I believe he does signed copies - donations to his favourite charity.
I think he looked better before he shaved the beard:
Naaa, just interested in how, exactly, he'd manage to explain those pics ^
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
