Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.

One specific point, and apologies if it has been already explained:

On Jul 14, 7:30 am, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 14, 5:33 am, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

this article in the NY times details the paranoid delusions of the
crazed fanatics who think there's a conspiracy to hide the fact man
never walked on the moon. the parallels with creationism are striking:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/science/space/14hoax.html?hpw

Forty years after men first touched the lifeless dirt of the Moon —
and they did. Really. Honest. — polling consistently suggests that
some 6 percent of Americans believe the landings were faked and could
not have happened. The series of landings, one of the greatest gambles
of the human race, was an elaborate hoax developed to raise national
pride, many among them insist.

[...]

Adam Savage, the co-star of the television show “MythBusters,” spent
an episode last year taking apart Moon hoax theories bit by bit,
entertainingly and convincingly. The theorists, he noted, never give
up. “They’ll say you have to keep an open mind,” he said, “but they
reject every single piece of evidence that doesn’t adhere to their
thesis.”
--------------------------------

We should be able to turn the Hubble telescope onto the moon landing
sites and take pictures of them, but those would all be fake, of
course.  Just like all those fossils, even if people just keep finding
more of them.

This is a common mis-understanding about the resolving power of
the Hubble Space Telescope:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm

Abandoned Spaceships

And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites
scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain
view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the
rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away.
At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are
about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo
equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single
pixel in a Hubble image.
---------------------------------------------------

As a long time space history buff, the Moon landing deniers are
idiots of a particularly obnoxious and stupid breed...

Andre

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
    ... never walked on the moon. ... We should be able to turn the Hubble telescope onto the moon landing ... Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
    ... never walked on the moon. ... We should be able to turn the Hubble telescope onto the moon landing ... Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bad News for Moon Hoax Buffs
    ... Hubble cannot resolve the Apollo landing ... If you could pull in the Hubble image close enough to resolve the moon ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Bad News for Moon Hoax Buffs
    ... Hubble cannot resolve the Apollo landing ... If you could pull in the Hubble image close enough to resolve the moon ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: for BMJ and all other parochial lot re moon landing
    ... I am not interested in forcing my opinion down anybody's throat. ... subject and in reading your posts and composing my posts. ... with nobody else being present on the moon? ... landing -but haven't dismissed the landing as a fake. ...
    (sci.research.careers)
Loading