Too much crap in s.s.h

In message , Doug...
writes
In article ,
says...
The time between reading s.s.h grows longer for me. Each time I log
in the crap level rises higher and higher. Any chance of some
discussion about s.s.h? I'd rather not read about Rhonda's anatomy or
who's doing what to whom, or arses that need rimming (what ever that
is)

Hey, I've got an idea. How big and or how far apart would three
Newtonian telescopse need to be to collectively image the Apollo
landing sites? The three images are computer processed to give the
impression that there is one huge telescope.

Any ideas any one?

It's my understanding that the new Keck observatory array may eventually
be able to do this. It currently has two 10m mirrors 85m apart, giving
it an angular resolution of 85m. I recall hearing that these two *may*
be good enough to image Apollo hardware, if the adaptive optics work as
well as they're supposed to. But I'm not sure they can get resolution
good enough to pick out more than shadows and points of light for things
the size of a spent descent stage.

It would be a great PR picture, but I'm fairly sure objects on the Moon
don't have enough _contrast_ to make it work. Those stories about
resolving car headlights on the moon are just to give the scale of what
they can do on the stars.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
Jonathan Silverlight on Sun, 20 Jul 2003
09:23:12 +0100, which said:

It would be a great PR picture, but I'm fairly sure objects on the Moon
don't have enough _contrast_ to make it work.

Just looking at the 1/48 plastic model I have of the landing site,
you're talking about black, silver and white against gray, seen from
directly overhead. I doubt there'd be anything to convince the
hoaxists, and I have misgivings about effective PR.


---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
u...
|
| It _might_ work if they can get enough contrast - sunrise or
| sunset - but that will only deliver shadows, not actual equipment.

I was going to mention that but you beat me to it. We already have orbital
photos of the LM on the surface, but all you can really see is the shadow.
If the intent is to prove it's a lunar module, it will fail. The intent of
the photo was to locate a lunar module that people already believed was
there.

The bulk of the descent stage should be three meters or so wide. If you can
image in different bands and use that funky cool image processing stuff that
the astronomers know how to do, you might come up with something. But the
best bet is to find the shadow.

| However, it might be enough to shut morons like Sibrel up
| permanently.

Of course not. These conspiracy kingpins are already in way too deep.
Sibrel, I understand, is being bankrolled by wealthy conspiracy theorists.
If he backs out now, he has to go back to doing real work. Kaysing might
just fade away and quietly die; he's in his 80s now. David Percy and his
co-author Mary Bennett are relatively young, have a high profile, and are
way too commercially tied to their sales in order to back down. They'll
just come up with one of their characteristically gynmastical evasions to
deal with it.

Let's get real. These authors have already ignored, sidestepped, or
attempted to explain away a staggering amount of evidence that would
convince any reasonable historian on the planet. What's the problem
explaining away some direct observation? They'll simply say *those* photos
were doctored too. They'll say NASA paid/threatened the astronomers to
create them. As long ago as 2001 I heard conspiracy theorists saying NASA
is busy launching unmanned rockets to the moon to deploy Apollo-like debris
in order to prepare for the upcoming opportunities to directly photograph
the sites.

Sure, let's photograph the landing sites if it would serve some other
purpose. But it will definitely *not* serve the purpose of quieting the
conspiracy theorists.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
u...
"John Beaderstadt" wrote in message
...
I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
Jonathan Silverlight on Sun, 20 Jul 2003
09:23:12 +0100, which said:

It would be a great PR picture, but I'm fairly sure objects on the Moon
don't have enough _contrast_ to make it work.

Just looking at the 1/48 plastic model I have of the landing site,
you're talking about black, silver and white against gray, seen from
directly overhead. I doubt there'd be anything to convince the
hoaxists, and I have misgivings about effective PR.

It _might_ work if they can get enough contrast - sunrise or sunset - but
that will only deliver shadows, not actual equipment. However, it might
be
enough to shut morons like Sibrel up permanently.

How could such a highly processed yet grainy picture ever convince the
hoaxists? That is just wishful thinking. Even a great picture taken by
sending a craft to the Apollo landing sites couldn't convince them. They
can simply claim the Apollo craft were sent without humans. They believe
what they want to believe in spite of overwhelming evidence they are wrong.

Jason

On or about Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:33:05 -0700, Jason Rhodes
made the sensational claim that:
How could such a highly processed yet grainy picture ever convince the
hoaxists? That is just wishful thinking. Even a great picture taken by
sending a craft to the Apollo landing sites couldn't convince them. They
can simply claim the Apollo craft were sent without humans.

Hell, I bet if you flew one of the hoax nuts to one of the landing sites they'd
claim you'd staged the scene the night before.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:18:25 GMT, John Beaderstadt
wrote:

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
LooseChanj on Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:56:02 GMT,
which said:

Hell, I bet if you flew one of the hoax nuts to one of the landing sites they'd
claim you'd staged the scene the night before.

Heh heh. He'd claim he was really on a soundstage in the Nevada
desert.

Hmm... Would that mean that *he* was being faked?



My attitude to the moon hoax believers is, I couldn't care less what
they believe.

When I meet someone that says, "Did you see that TV program? We never
landed on the moon!", my response is, "Yea, whatever." Why should I
waste my time caring or trying to convince some fool of the obvious?
If they are stupid enough to be taken in by that crap, who cares? Why
should I act like some kind of religious zealot and try to convert
them? The last time I checked, it's not against the law to be a fool.



--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California |"Every so often, I like to
| stick my head out the window,
| look up, and smile for the
| satellite picture."-Steven Wright

John Beaderstadt ) writes:
I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
LooseChanj on Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:56:02 GMT,
which said:

Hell, I bet if you flew one of the hoax nuts to one of the landing sites
they'd claim you'd staged the scene the night before.

Heh heh. He'd claim he was really on a soundstage in the Nevada
desert.

Offer to help him open his space suit helmet....

Two problems solved at once... :-)

Hmm... Would that mean that *he* was being faked?

Not. Going. There...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:35:11 -0700, Rusty Barton
wrote:

When I meet someone that says, "Did you see that TV program? We never
landed on the moon!", my response is, "Yea, whatever." Why should I
waste my time caring or trying to convince some fool of the obvious?
If they are stupid enough to be taken in by that crap, who cares? Why
should I act like some kind of religious zealot and try to convert
them? The last time I checked, it's not against the law to be a fool.

....And they said the same thing about the National Socialist Party
from 1919 to 1936 in Germany, too.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:45:21 -0600, OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:35:11 -0700, Rusty Barton
wrote:


Why should I act like some kind of religious zealot and try to convert
them? The last time I checked, it's not against the law to be a fool.

...And they said the same thing about the National Socialist Party
from 1919 to 1936 in Germany, too.



I can see it now. There is a knock on your door on Saturday morning.
You answer the door and hear this:



"Hello friend, I am with the Launch Tower Society of the Jovan
Witnesses. I would like to leave you a copy of our Launch Tower
magazine. Do you know the true Werner? Have you accepted Werner von
Braun into your heart? He died so that mankind could be free of this
world. There are those non-believers that deny the power of his work,
but his handicraft is in the heavens! You must believe to leave this
world and reap the rewards of the heavens! What do you say my friend?"



"Yea, I believe, but I'm sorting my socks right now." SLAM! ;-)





--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California |"Every so often, I like to
| stick my head out the window,
| look up, and smile for the
| satellite picture."-Steven Wright

Rusty Barton wrote in message

My attitude to the moon hoax believers is, I couldn't care less what
they believe.

When I meet someone that says, "Did you see that TV program? We never
landed on the moon!", my response is, "Yea, whatever." Why should I
waste my time caring or trying to convince some fool of the obvious?
If they are stupid enough to be taken in by that crap, who cares? Why
should I act like some kind of religious zealot and try to convert
them? The last time I checked, it's not against the law to be a fool.


It gets me frosted everytime! People I work with know I'm a space
enthusiast. One of the young people ( 25 years old) I work with said
"Did you watch the show on the faked moon landings?...Wow since I
watched that show I'm not so sure now!" This is coming from a person
who works in an electronics lab!

Thanks to Oliver Stone and the Fox Network, too many people are
getting a warped view of history...very sad.

My co-worker also believes in all that space alien/crop circle crap
too. He is surprised that I ,as a space enthusiast, didn't buy into
it.

I work for Northrop Grumman in Baltimore. We used to be Westinghouse
Defense Electronics. Our company designed the Apollo B&W TV camera and
has a long history of space accomplishments. Yet our rank and file
remain rather liberal, anti space exploration and anti defense even
though it puts food on the table!

It's July 20th, we have grounded shuttles and a half finished space
station and no national gumption to do any better.

Gene