While reading the latest back and forth in the CT section a question comes to mind.

It revolves around the age old CT point “Why don’t we photograph the old hardware?”

I know the basic reason but not enough of the details. Most of the replies given to the Cter use terms like angular resolution and wavelength and such. I feel these are to technical for the Cter to deal with and then he/she just ignores the reply. It seems that our answers dance around as much as theirs do. Nothing definitive in simple terms that they would have a hard time dancing around.

The Cter wants to see a photo with enough resolution to see stars on the flags left behind. Never mind that they have probably deteriorated to residue on the regolith.
Could we have someone with the proper knowledge work up some concrete numbers?

How large of a lens/mirror does it take to “see the stars” in visible light at 50 miles? 200 inches???
How much would this lens/mirror weigh? 2 tons??
How large would the controlling craft have to weigh? 20 tons for a 2 ton mirror??
How large of a launch vehicle would be needed? Saturn class??

Perhaps if we put some of our answers in simpler terms but still have enough details, we might get a Cter to miss a step in his dance.


To get a photo with enough resolution to see the stars on the flags it would take a mirror with a diameter of 200 inches and weigh about 2 tons. The controlling craft would have to weigh over 20 tons. Just to launch the sat to the Moon would require a Saturn class launch vehicle. The cost estimate of said mission would exceed 10% of NASAs yearly budget. These are simple laws of physics just like the speed of light. Computers and software cannot substitute any portion of such a mission.

Any thoughts?

I think a lot of it is about getting the proponent to do some of the work. To teach them what work is important and how to do it.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Plenty. For one, I posted a response in that thread. Nothing I say is that complex, as my knowledge of that end of things is, well, "limited" (*cough*nonexistant*cough*). The point is there are plenty of non-complex, layman type answers in those threads too. They just gets ignored though, since the "CT'er" is typically more interested in battling the "entrenched evil scientists".

Plus, one must be wary of oversimplifying an answer. Often, that's what the CT is looking for, so they can jump on it an say that answer is wrong, thus everything that poster said is wrong, thus said conspiracy is right.

I agree that some of the responses can be very complex and hard for a layman to follow. But honestly, if one can't understand those issues, then one has absolutely no right to proclaim whatever theory their spouting. How can you "prove", for instance, that the moon landings were fake, if you can't understand the process that we used to get there?

Hell, to get the ball rolling one doesn't even need to understand every last detail of every last mission. But if you're going to shout that the capsule was not properly shielded to transgress the VAB, then you damn well better know a thing or two about the VAB, radiation, and the technology employed to shield against such.

Once a flaw could be proven, then you'd have a good jumping off point for further proof of a conspiracy. Now, I know we actually did go to the moon, thus such a flaw would never be found. But if they want to try, go ahead.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Then the HB would ask, "how do you know this?", and you would have to give an answer that involves, "angular resolution and wavelength and such". It's a no-win situation.

__________________
"Time travel gives me a headache." - Capt. Kathryn Janeway

Evidence and proof probably won't matter, regardless of whether it's very detailed and supported with math, or extremely simplified.

I only know one HB in real life. He believes that there are alien bases on the far side of the moon, proved by photographs taken during the Apollo missions. He also believes that the Apollo missions were faked.

He honestly sees no contradiction between these two beliefs.

How can you argue with someone like that?

(One of my favorite arguments from him is that NASA would have never actually sent humans to the moon because it's too dangerous. Keep him talking for a few more minutes and he'll tell you about the "NASA death squads" that exist to keep people from talking. So NASA isn't willing to risk people's lives, and also has an entire department devoted to killing people. He doesn't see any contradiction here, either.)

I think that's a very worthy sentiment, but is there any way to completely avoid the science?

It still comes down to a question of optics, and if a person either can't understand the subject (which is likely, considering they bought into the argument in the first place), won't do their own homework (also likely, as evidenced by the all-too-common 'What about ...' posts), or refuses to accept qualified explanations empirically (which seems almost universal amongst hoax proponents/followers) then you're pretty much euchred.

Add to that the problem of popular media dumping pseudoscience into the mainstream. In the latest exchange, there was the insistence that images could be 'zoomed' and 'enhanced' using digital processing. I've seen TV investigators take blurry camera images and enhance them to produce crystal clear prints of suspects. I know that's not possible, but how do you convince them?

__________________
I can't WAIT for January 1, 2013 to arrive! Then again, I'm still waiting for October 1, 1993 ...

You'd better BET there's a spoon, Neo! THWACK!!!!

Sounds like a fun conversation!

Those kinds of people just want to beleive its a hoax. They enjoy their beleif and something ab out it makes them feel good. Many of the (IMHO) just read some stupid site and buy it because it sounds good, but wont take the time to understand the real physics involved, or they lack the brains or education.

Heck I'd give a lot to know we have been visited by aliens, or to find bases on the far side of the moon. I hope we discover we arent alone before I die. However, I also know that proving such takes a lot of work and I am not educated enough to do it. I am educated enough to know we went to the moon, but if some incontroversial evidence was shown to me that I could research that would prove otherwise, I'd take a look at it for sure.

But we never seem to give them the size of the sat needed to return pictures they feel should be available.
They seem to think a modern 200lb sat should be able to give pictures better than anything from the 60's.

Am I close to the size mirror needed?? If so then they might realize that it would take one super sized sat to handle it. Simply saying Hubbles mirror isn't big enough leaves them too much room to squirm with their answers.

Oh, you have no idea!

Even more telling is when you get him talking about multiple conspiracy theories. For example, LCROSS photos are not sufficient to prove that we landed on the moon because they lack detail, yet a blur that amounts to no more than 5 or 6 pixels is seen as incontrovertible proof of something nefarious when talking about a different ct (which can't be discussed on this forum).

Proof can have a very, shall we say, "fluid" definition for a HB.

If you were dealing with someone who was genuinely curious then yes simplifying things makes sense. However from reading through the board it seems that 'just asking questions' really is just a gambit for CT's to try and put one over.
Also simplifying can introduce inaccuracies and ambiguities, and that's what HB's thrive on.

That is not true. I know people have shown calculations of how big a mirror you would need in a telescope, lets say in low Earth orbit, to resolve the LM on the moon to something more than a single pixel. I can't quite find it quickly in this forum, but here is what about a minute of google use found:

Here is the Bad Astronomer's blog entry on the matter.
Here is an entire webpage devoted to the calculations.

It has nothing to do with the age of the telescope, optics have not changed from the 1960s.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Not at all...as Swift has posted, the explanation is neither vague nor complex, nor does it allow any "room to squirm".

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

{HB mode}

Yeah right. So all you need do is zoom in on the image and enhance. Don't you watch CSI, Bladerunner?

{/HB mode}

See? Ya can't win. You can only present the facts as best you can, and hope that others (having more usable logic centres) are watching and learning.

This I know. But Samkent should know better and could have found the answers.

By the way, "CSI, Bladerunner" - now that would be a cool show. Looking in the microscope to get the serial numbers of the snake scales. Yeah, I think we got a hit.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

That's probably pretty close. If the camera currently in orbit (0.2 meters) gives a resolution of 0.5 meters. then a 200" mirror (5 meters) should give about 2 centimeter resolution (say, one inch). So a 5 meter mirror should give a fairly detailed image of the LM lower stage.

But why bother? It would then be easy to say that any pictures taken with this behemoth are faked. In fact, since we all know nobody ever went to the moon, such pictures HAVE to be fakes. And if the pictures ARE real, it dosen't prove anything except that we landed an empty machine on the moon, since humans could never survive the trip, anyway.

Quod, as they say, erat demonstratum.

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

Actually, the better the quality of the pictures of the descent stage taken from orbit are, the more likely the HB's will come out saying that there is no way it should look like this or that because of how longs its been there or whatever argument that they draw up.

I prefer the scientific explanation simply because it is the best way to explain it. There in no ambiguity when it is explain in this way. If they need it "dumbed down", then they probably need to educate themselves a little more before throwing out theories they know nothing about.

And just for the record. I don't have a higher education, I have a very basic knowledge of physics, mathematics, etc. If I can understand what is being explained here then it shouldn't be hard for others to. And if they don't understand, they can always ask questions.

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

I'd give it in Terms of comparisons. Hubble tellescope has been aimed at the moon and could not resolve deails of the equipment left behind, other then a few pixels. So lets take the largest peice of euipment at say 3 meters wides, detected by a 2 meter wide scope in orbit of earth. To resolve a star on a flag on the moon, instead of 4 pixes, you would need around 50, for a 6cm star shape.

Ergo...2 meter wide scope in orbit of earth resolves 3 meter traget on moon as 4 pixels.

3 * 100 =300cm/4 = 1 pixel per 75cm resolution with 2 meter dish

for the stare of the flage we already know it needs 50 pixels, wjhich computes out to 8 Pixels per cm.

Can then calculate the size of the scope needed. fo the fraction ar 1/75 and 8/1, when you renormalize the second to common denomator, its 600/1 = 600. divide by the orginal size or scope to get the size of a scope needed to resolve the stars on a flag. 300m. So it would take a telescope with a mirror 150 times the size of Hubble to resolve a star on a a flage from the neighborhoos fo the earth.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

There's a difference between the size of the optics and the mass of a spacecraft: An advanced telescope might have a lower mass mirror than an older telescope design, but once you've optimized the optics, if you're going to get better resolution at the same distance, you're going to need bigger optics.

Well, if that's all somebody said, I'd agree, but that's usually not what is stated. Hubble does not have the resolution required for existing artifacts at the Moon's distance. The issue of what is to be resolved, and the distance between the telescope and the Moon, are key points in any discussion on the subject.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

The CTer has already missed a step in their dance when they make claims that (for example) Hubble should be able to resolve artifacts on the moon. The reasonable response is to explain why it physically can't.

The CTer usually will ignore or deny the response. It doesn't matter much: The CTers aren't going to change their tune. Before LRO, we had a number of people on the board that said they would accept the landings if only there were images from lunar orbit. It was absolutely no surprise that, when those images became available, the typical CTer simply said the images were fake or weren't good enough.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Apparently, faking the LRO images of the Apollo sights is as easy as blotting ink on a bingo card. Now, back to work on my human land on Mars with lander hoax I have been working on.....

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

Google Earth hasn't helped either, since a few HB's I know think all the pics on Google Earth are taken from satelites.....

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

I think the replies are good. I learn a lot from them and from a question I might not have thought about. I think the replies serve the questioner quite well to show them how much they thought they knew and in a lot of cases there is an almost visible double take at their notes when it sinks in that a lot has been missed. Then the dance of covering your tracks and trying to look good when all else if failing, starts.

It sets the bar I think.

It’s those kind of answers that I am talking about.

The Hbers are not technically knowledgeable people so answers using math are just going to make them sidestep. It’s kind of like asking the salesman what the MPG is on that new car. Since we are the salesman of space we shouldn’t answer with “Well the mileage is good but yours will vary depending on the temperature and acceleration.” We talk around the answers as much as they do. If a 200 inch mirror is needed then lets just say so.

Maybe Clavius needs another page devoted to the telescope requirements.

As several posters have pointed out just saying a 200 inch mirror is needed will just get a response along the lines of 'prove it'. What do we do then?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

It's high on the to-do list.

No one kind of answer fits everyone. Some just want an expert opinion. Others want analogies. Still others want to be taught the science behind the answer.

"I've been an astronomer for 35 years and I'm telling you the Hubble Space Telescope can't see objects that small on the Moon."

"It's like how you can see a truck a mile away but you can't see a penny twenty feet away."

"The angular resolving power of any telescope is proportional to the wavelength you're seeing in divided by the diameter of its optical primary. If you do those numbers for any telescope, you'll find you can't see the LM at lunar distance."

These are all correct answers, but you can't usually know ahead of time which one will be the one that best appeals.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Just a minor nitpick here, one that a HB would pounce on:

Optics have not changed since the 1960s?? Are you nuts? How can you say that when we have all this wonderful enhancement technology that lets you sharpen a picture enough to read a license plate from orbit? You're trying to tell me that we're still suing the same crappy technology from 50 years ago?

Ok, taking my HB hat off now. The physics of light and optics have not changed since the 1960s, and we are still constrained by the same basic laws of nature.

Barring any ultra-sensitive, top secret spy satellites that we are not aware of, I thought the whole notion that satellites could read a licence plate from orbit was a myth ... notwithstanding that licence plates are normally placed vertically so that even if a satellite had the resolution to read them at that distance it could not do so from overhead because the lettering wouldn't even be visible.

I would humbly suggest that the physics of light and optics date back slightly further than the 1960s ...

__________________
Dave

Anyone seen my marbles? Anyone ... ?

But are we salesmen? I hope not. I hope we are educators, which is quite different. I don't intend to sell anybody anything. I intend to teach what I know to people who don't. This is quite different. Telling people how to figure things out on their own is not talking around the answers. It is giving people the skills to understand them, at least ideally.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Samkent, I feel for ya, man. I, too, wish there were a simple set of answers we could give these people that would make the light go on in their heads and realize how they're completely and totally wrong.

I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but for a lot of them no amount of factual data, even from an acknowledged expert like our esteemed JayUtah, will ever convince them. The now-banished (and good riddance imho) Conspiracy Realist couldn't be convinced he was wrong even if he received a message straight from God, complete with stone tablets.

Most things in this world have a simple and complex answer.

When my son was young, he asked me how my guitar made music, and the answer was simple ... I place my fingers on the strings in different places and pluck or strum them to sound the notes. Now, as a teenager, having taken up guitar himself, the same question generates quite a discussion about the vibration of the strings and its interaction with the soundboard and hollow body of the guitar, why a solid wood, rather than veneer, is preferable and why good guitars sound better as they get older.

Likewise, if I am explaining how a pension works to a client, they are generally satisfied with a general description of how it generates them a sum of money to provide retirement income without getting into the technical details of how it works under the bonnet. However, some clients want to know how they are treated for tax before and after vesting, what options are available, what happens on death etc.

In both cases, to get the full picture you need the more complex answers. Likewise, if you believe that pension contracts are a rip-off, or that funny looking wooden thing with a hole in the top covered by chicken wire cannot possibly be a musical instrument a simple answer will not suffice, you need to get into the detail in order to show how they are not, and it is ... respectively.

Likewise with hoax theories about the moon landings. To use your initial example ... simply stating the size of the mirror required, and asserting its expense, does simplify the answer but, for someone who doesn't understand the physics involved, provides no evidence that you know what you are talking about. The obvious answer "well, you would say that" is quickly followed by "prove it".

Offering the evidence up front (even if it is complex, because some things in this world just are) demonstrates that you know what you are talking about and can ber verified elsewhere.

If the questioner doesn't understand the physics, then this leads them to the possibility of learning something (assuming they are interested in that). If they choose to ignore it, that is their problem.

__________________
Dave

Anyone seen my marbles? Anyone ... ?