The moon?
I just had the pleasure of talking to a fellow who believes the moon landing was a hoax.
He said, "the logic doesn't work in my mind."
I asked, "by logic, do you mean scientific logic, or are you just 'winging it.'"
He replied, "I can't provide an argument at this time. This is kind of on the spot."
Evidently he thought "it's impossible to generate enough thrust to escape the Moon."
Okay, first of all, the escape velocity of the moon is 2.38km/s. The delta-v (think product of thrust) able to be generated by the lunar lander's ascent module is 4.69km/s.
If that doesn't convince you, and this trumps all moon hoax arguments, the astronauts put retroreflective mirrors* on the moon. Scientists on the earth point lasers at these mirrors in order to gauge the distance from the earth to the moon. Now unless aliens put these mirrors on the moon's surface, you're pretty uninformed.
He said, "the logic doesn't work in my mind."
I asked, "by logic, do you mean scientific logic, or are you just 'winging it.'"
He replied, "I can't provide an argument at this time. This is kind of on the spot."
Evidently he thought "it's impossible to generate enough thrust to escape the Moon."
Okay, first of all, the escape velocity of the moon is 2.38km/s. The delta-v (think product of thrust) able to be generated by the lunar lander's ascent module is 4.69km/s.
If that doesn't convince you, and this trumps all moon hoax arguments, the astronauts put retroreflective mirrors* on the moon. Scientists on the earth point lasers at these mirrors in order to gauge the distance from the earth to the moon. Now unless aliens put these mirrors on the moon's surface, you're pretty uninformed.
*retroreflective mirrors are mirrors that reflect light back in the direction from which it came.
"ma'am"
18 Comments:
I think if it had been a hoax, it would have blown up a long time ago. Too many people would have been involved & we know how people like to talk. Oh wait cept for those area 51 people. But then again they, I mean it does not exist.
I know it happened I watched it on TV & every one knows if its on TV its real! Right I mean smoke & mirrors are just for magic.
1- kalani just climaxed having read this
2- arent all mirrors 'reflecting' mirrors?
3- after seeing the specials on discovery channel etc about the possibility of a hoax, it is an inescapable conclusion for me as a photographer that at least a hndful of the pictures released to the public were indeed doctored. no question about it! that is where alot of the stronger arguments stem.
4- is their a possibilty that the mirrors were put there by an unmanned mission at some point?
My math teacher in high school had us watch a movie about how the moon landing was a hoax. The film showed all kinds of "evidence" but I think they were arguing that we weren't the first to land on the moon and pictures of the first landing were phony. Old Mr. Dikkers believed all of this, but he was a bit wacko.
In response to brico's comments:
1 - I had at least a passing thought of that occuring.
2 - Retroreflective mirrors reflect light back to the source, regardless of incidence angle...
3 - I'd like to see what unrefutable evidence of doctoring exists. As far as I can tell, each point made by those in favor of the hoax has been easily countered with a logical explanation.
4 - Of course we have the technologically ability to do so, but it's a possibility that has no merit mostly due to its utter lack of evidence.
I remember when I first saw a show about how it was a hoax, I believe it was on Fox (go figure). But, can a flag wave on the moon? I guess the only way to really know is to tie Armstrong up and torcher him with TomKat footage and pictures.
I think people mistake the momentum of the flag unfurling on the moon for "waving" You can see in later pictures that the flag stops "waving" once the motion damps out.
Brico knows me so well...
1- there were two pics released by NASA. one was labeled day A at site A, a mountainous background empty foreground. the other was labeled day B at site B, the EXACT same photo but instead of an empty foreground, the lander was in the foreground. the lander never moved until liftoff! photo B had the lander overlayed into it with the day and location name changed.
2- all pics that were taken by the cameras on the moon were taken with a lens that had 4 x's grooved into it for location reference. the x's can be seen in all photos that were officially released by NASA. there are two pics where the foreground object (one being neil) overlays part of at least one of the x's. that would be impossible, the x would overlay everything in the pic.
these to me dont prove a hoax by any means but do prove that photos were doctored before being released to the public. my guess is that govt was not satisfied with the quality of pics actually taken and wanted to establish clearer more irrefutable proof to throw at the soviets.
Retroreflective Mirrors would be a great name for a rock band.
Brico,
check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations#Issues_of_photographs
Erik,
check out
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
okay i read your page... i can see the machine has already gotten to you. we lose another good one! damnit!
what about that 'Van' something radiation belt? and the 'killer electrons' that have been discovered in recent years. even shuttle astronauts on the highest altitude voyages say that it was illuminating their retnas even through closed eyelids. we werent aware of this radiation belt in 1969 as i understand it.
and was the 35k 'computer' on the LEM really enough to get the module back home?
you wont get in trouble for talking about this will you? they monitor your communication you know.
and im just funning with you about this topic but if you ever get assigned to area 51... WERE TALKING!!!
Well, as far as the Van Allen Radiation Belt goes, all astronauts passing through the belt recieved a dose of radiation, but a harmless dose (given the length of time they spend in it). The only long lasting effect might be a slightly higher chance of cancer. NASA tried to mitigate the belt's effect on the health of astronauts by employing transfer orbits that only grazed the belt. The biggest concern this belt has on day-to-day operations is actually the operation of satellites, whose hardware must be hardened against the extra radiation (even the Hubble shuts down as it passes through the belt).
With the "killer electrons" illuminating your vision when your eyes are closed: I recently read an autobiographical book written by an astronaut who describes this. This phenomenon occurs when a stray cosmic ray shoots through your head and stimulates your optic nerve. The effect isn't blinding and continuous, but rather a transient BLIP! that can be startling to someone that doesn't expect it. However, it is unharmful and is an uncommon occurence.
As for 35k being enough memory, as a programmer myself I know that is absolutely enough memory for a wide array of programming applications, especially if you're programming in assembly...
keep 'em coming, brico! :)
okay,
has the hubble or any earth telescope ever been able to photograph the rover or the flag or the LEM base unit? if so, end of story, no more conspiricy. if not... why not?
I don't think so, but that's just a technical issue. When you're dealing with big huge earth telescope (like the ones in the domes) and the Hubble, they're not designed to look at close objects like the Moon (or even Pluto) with a decent resolution like they are with objects millions of light years away. It has to do with depth-of-field, basically. Put your finger really, really close to your eye and try to make out the ridges.
As far as spy satellites being able to do it, I don't think they would simply because they don't have the resolution for something that far away (similar principle as before, but backwards).
As for someone designing a telescope just for that purpose, I'm not sure. It might be possible that the distortion from our atmosphere might create problems for focusing on something that small on the moon (like trying to look at a penny on the bottom of a rippling pool).
Then again, if someone could produce such a photograph, the hoaxers would just say it's doctored. So you might just do yourself a favor by believing in the scientific method, because there's overwhelming evidence supporting my side ;)
Although, here's an interesting read along those lines (with pictures):
http://www.pa.msu.edu/people/frenchj/moon/landingsite.html
i dunno erik, im having a hard time swallowing (a phrase youll never hear kalani say!) that we dont have a single telescope that was designed focal wise for detailed observation of the moon. doesnt that strike you as a bit odd. the closest object to us and we cant look at it in detail?? hmmmmm
I don't find it odd, especially given the facts about the optical technology. I mean, we can look at it in detail, but not to the ultra-fine detail that would permit observing actual (and very, very, very tiny) artifacts. I mean, I imagine that's it's somehow possible, if we shunt tens of millions of dollars into a telescope so finely ground that it can make out such small details on the moon from the Earth, but such a fine resolution holds no real scientific value besides debunking hoaxers.
I don't know if you're familiar, but astronauts also brought back rocks from the moon. These rocks are much, much older than any rocks found on the Earth (the youngest of them are still much older than the oldest rocks on Earth). This is just because the Moon isn't going through the same rock formation process the Earth is still currently going through.
And to be serious. You have to be careful, Brico, not to let these people get into your head. It's a dangerous way of thinking in general (a dismissal of the scientific method), and is analagous to the intelligent design debate. These hardcore hoaxers completely reject evidence so they can perpetuate their belief (the reason being malevolent or otherwise). I hope you'll agree that a scientific way of thinking is the best for issues pertaining to both science and history. No evidence (and I mean no viable evidence) exists that supports the moon hoax theory (and the fact that we don't have a fine enough resolution to see the artifacts on the moon is not evidence for the other side).
Post a Comment
<< Home