Finally, all the Moon Hoaxers can move on, right?

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't feel its being responsible to go up to random people asking them random trivia questions

I was also the guy sitting in the front center seat of the classroom asking the questions. At one point, in a Chem class, I realized that I had completely derailed the lecture, so, feeling a bit conspicuous, I apologized and said that I would stop interrupting. I swear, the entire class objected! "We like your questions" said a voice from the back of the room.

Wrt to the actual topic here, , I was just curious if someone her age was even aware of the signficance of the day. I didn't expect the conspiracy nonsense to come back at me.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the simple fact that it was and still is impossible to "fake" the video feed from the moon on a stage because you would have needed a GIGANTIC vacuum chamber the likes of which has never been seen. The video had to have been filmed in a vacuum with reduced gravity due to many physical phenomenea seen in the video, mainly that the dust kicked up by the astronauts follows a perfect projectile trajectory consistent with a) no atmosphere and b) Lunar gravity.

All claims from conspiracy theorists are definitively debunked by http://www.clavius.org/ for anyone that is curious what the logical scientific arguments against the moon-hoaxers are.

 

[wrongusername]

Why didn't they continue to send people to the moon though?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why didn't they continue to send people to the moon though?

Cost. There was really no reason to go back [no scientific or national security reason that could be cost justified]. Also, even before the Apollo missions had ended, the public had lost interest. Public interest helps to determine where money is spent.

The race to the moon was really a macho contest between the US and the Soviet Union.

It was decided that near-earth missions and a space station would prove to be far more valuable investments than moon missions, in terms of both science and national security.

 

[Pengwuino]

No. And that is not just a matter of opinion.

And I think it's one of the few conspiracy theories where the conspiracy isn't just unlikely and quite disagreeable with Ockham's razor, it's actually nearly impossible. I'm sure if you just threw enough money and resources at the problem and probably constructed even more 'engineering wonders of the world' then it took to go to the moon, you could fake it... but I bet it would be easier to actually go to the moon! Funny how, besides the JFK assassination probably, it's probably the most popular conspiracy theory around.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And I think it's one of the few conspiracy theories where the conspiracy isn't just unlikely and quite disagreeable with Ockham's razor, it's actually nearly impossible.

Also, I think it was mentioned earlier that because it was a race between the US and the USSR - in effect it was seen as a test to prove which system was better - we can all be sure that the Soviets made sure that it was all real ;just as we made sure that all of their claims were true. At the time that the landings occurred, they could see if there was a feed coming from the moon. There is NOTHING that the Soviets would have loved more than the ability to claim the landings were hoaxed.

 

[DaveC426913]

And I think it's one of the few conspiracy theories where the conspiracy isn't just unlikely and quite disagreeable with Ockham's razor, it's actually nearly impossible. I'm sure if you just threw enough money and resources at the problem and probably constructed even more 'engineering wonders of the world' then it took to go to the moon, you could fake it... but I bet it would be easier to actually go to the moon! Funny how, besides the JFK assassination probably, it's probably the most popular conspiracy theory around.

That's what they say:

Creating a perfect conspiracy is a vast, monumental undertaking. But that's OK, NASA can do anything (except go to the Moon).

 

[Proton Soup]

there's a reason they lost the originals

 

[mgb_phys]

It's obviously a hoax - the shadows don't line up

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah that photo is fake. Notice the geological formations to the right of the rover. A celestial body with no atmosphere is unable to form with such large variations in height. The expected layering of lunar dust was described in detail by Hobbes, Calvin, et al. (2003) "Lunar geological formations" Phys. Rep. 424: 303–381.

There's also a cat walking around.

 

[Pengwuino]

HEY! The ultimate experiment! Bring a cat on the moon and drop it! I htink that'll prove... something.

Do it.

 

[lisab]

HEY! The ultimate experiment! Bring a cat on the moon and drop it! I htink that'll prove... something.

Do it.

I bet it would show that cats don't land on their feet, when dropped in no atmosphere.

Poor kitty.

 

[russ_watters]

I bet it would show that cats don't land on their feet, when dropped in no atmosphere.

You can do that experiment on earth, you just have to be quick about it, before the cat turns inside-out.

 

[BobG]

I bet it would show that cats don't land on their feet, when dropped in no atmosphere.

Poor kitty.

I bet it would show that cats landing on their feet has to do with conservation of angular momentum rather than having anything to do with atmosphere. In fact, if you can drop the cat clean enough that it has no chance to react before it's free of your hands, it won't land on its feet. It can't twist half of its body 180 degrees with the other half twisting 180 degrees in the opposite direction if it started with 0 rotation.

It has to start a rotation before it's in free fall, at which time it can speed up or slow down the rotation rate of at least part of its body before it hits the ground. Of course, a slower rate of fall might seriously mess up the cat's timing, causing it to over rotate instead of landing on its feet.

I agree with Pengwino. They ought to try it.

(By the way, cats are suspicious creatures and fast learners. If you don't drop it cleanly on the first attempt, forget about succeeding on further attempts. In fact, by about the third or fourth attempt, you can expect to start receiving some serious wounds from the cat.)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That photo does not prove we didn't go to the moon. The cat could have been a stowaway. What I want to know is, if they can put a cat on the moon, why can't they put all the cats on the moon?

 

[mgb_phys]

why can't they put all the cats on the moon?

Because there's nothing for them to eat, unless the moon was made of cheese in which case there would be mice.
Since there aren't cats on the moon it must not be made of cheese! - Where do I collect my Nobel prize?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Where do I collect my Nobel prize?

You can have one of mine. I got one for proving the moon isn't made of green cheese too, and another for proving it is.

 

[turbo]

I have information from a credible source that NASA faked Obama's birth certificate. Pass it on.

 

[Pengwuino]

I have information from a credible source that NASA faked Obama's birth certificate. Pass it on.

Obama faked the moon landing. Pass it on.

 

[DaveC426913]

Obama faked the moon landing. Pass it on.

The Obama cyborg is what NASA has been secretly creating behind all those closed doors for the last 40 years. Pass it on.

 

[jobyts]

[hope I won't spoil the fun, if I ask a serious question in this thread...:)]

How did rock form in the outer surface of moon (with such low gravity)? Does moon have a evidence of volcanic eruption?

 

[DaveC426913]

[hope I won't spoil the fun, if I ask a serious question in this thread...:)]

How did rock form in the outer surface of moon (with such low gravity)? Does moon have a evidence of volcanic eruption?

Not so much volcanic, but it has been insulted by monumental collisions that have liquified the core material, causing it to pour out and cool on the surface. This is what the great mares (seas) are made of.

 

[mgb_phys]

How did rock form in the outer surface of moon (with such low gravity)?

You don't need gravity to form rocks. Asteroids have much less gravity than the moon and they are rocks.

Does moon have a evidence of volcanic eruption?

No, the moon doesn't have a liquid core. Even if it were formed like a planet the small size means that it would have cooled completely (think of surface area to volume).
The moon was almost certainly formed from parts of the Earth's crust and upper mantle that were knocked off when the earlier Earth was hit by a large asteroid. These would have been melted by the impact and turned into the moon by a combination of gravity and surface tension as they cooled.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, the moon doesn't have a liquid core. Even if it were formed like a planet the small size means that it would have cooled completely (think of surface area to volume).

A billion years ago it had a liquid core but it is cold and dead now. (THough it still gets moon quakes.)

 

[fillindablank]

NASA recently found some lost footage from the mission which they are supposed to be releasing soon. Richard C Hoagland has already come out saying that they actually intentionally hid the footage until they had adequate technology to undetectably edit out the parts they don't want us to see. So obviously the picture is fake.

It isn't fake, they had to edit out the aliens that were there.

 

[mgb_phys]

It isn't fake, they had to edit out the aliens that were there.

If NASA's technology is due to contact with aliens - they must have been these guys

 

[harrisjr]

Photoshopped! Also; what is this suppose to prove, it's just a dot. and the 100metres zoom'ed one is just some pixels :P Nah I am kidding, I think the moon landing really happened of course, but there will always be a few conspiracy nuts out there that will deny this. It is somewhat weird though that footage just gets lost and then recovered out of nowhere. And what's up with the new HD footage? this must be upscaled or what, hd wasnt around in the late 1960's :P

 

[mgb_phys]

And what's up with the new HD footage? this must be upscaled or what, hd wasnt around in the late 1960's :P

The cameras on the moon shot very low resolution 320lines @ 10 frames/second - this was becuase there wasn't enough bandwidth on the data link to send back regular video (only 500KHz, mono-NTSC needs about 4.5MHz)
US broadcast quality (in those days) was 525 lines interleaved @ 60 fields/second

The video that was broadcast was from a TV camera looking at the monitor at the ground station showing the 320 line/10Hz signal.

Nasa has subsequently mislaid the data for the original 320 line images and only has low quality recordings of the the broadcast from the screen camera. It is these tapes that have been cleaned up and upscaled for the release.
But even the original data is far from HD, it's only half the number of lines and 1/6 the frame rate.

There was a hope that one of the download stations might have kept a copy of the raw data, but storing even 500KHz digital data was an expensive operation in 1969 and none of them could. The stories of 'lost moon footage found in Australia' was just journalistic spin - it was Nasa library footage of the broadcast signal, the same one you see on every Discovery channel trailer.

 

[drizzle]

how much did it cost NASA for a two way tickets to the moon? [like there will be one way ticket]


seriously, would it cost them as much if they do it again? I mean nowadays with the new tech things are more efficient, lighter, cheaper …etc

 

[Guesser7]

This proves absolutely nothing. I would even question the length of the shadow taking all the othe stuff strewn around and craters and shadows . It was probably done by some Fx guys in a studio.

I have entered into many discussions on this topic and there is not one single shread of tangible proof they went to the Moon. I have also seen all the manufactured evidence from Mythbusters and that other little Jay Windley guy. They are making the evidence fit, anyone can do that, it is not clever at all. Jay Windley said that "The hoaxers drive a wedge into a laymans uncertainty". So he thinks he is the expert and we are all just stupid laymen. A bit of a put-down eh? Well I would like him to explain some of this.

The flag clearly does move when no one is near it? watch closely it does clearly move.

When did hypergolic fuel ever burn completely crystal clear? impossible.

The lunar landscapes are rounded and smooth. Impossible, that landscape was shaped by impacts that blasted into the surface. It would be like going into quarry after blasting and findng that all the rocks were smooth edged and nicely rounded off.

The best one they came away with was the crosshairs etched into the camera lenses being behind foreground objects. They said this was caused by burn out caused by the strong light. What total and utter rubbish because some of the crosshairs are completely visible over object with the same luminousity.

And please don't say moon rocks. Antartica is covered in rocks that were blasted from Mars and the Moon and were caught in our gravity field.