Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Why the moon landings were not faked

rated by 0 users
This post has 77 Replies | 8 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 871
Points 21,030
eliotn Posted: Mon, Sep 24 2012 9:40 AM

First of all, NASA claimed to put mirrors on the moon with their missions.  So why try to fake it, when anyone who has a powerful enough laser can merely point it at the mirror and see a reflection?  I knew something was off when none of the moon conspiricy theorists pointed out these mirrors.

Second, many of the observed video flaws were replicated when Mythbusters tried to replicate the artificial conditions on the moon.  http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing.  This shows that either a lot of effort went into artificially simulating conditions on the moon, or its real.

I guess the lesson here is reader beware the conspiricy theorists, they might be onto something or rehashing the disproven myths.

Schools are labour camps.

  • | Post Points: 80
Not Ranked
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 10:04 AM

The mirrors were put there by aliens, and/or the people who live on the moon called the Lunarians.  The aliens use them like we do; because of their vanity and while brushing their teeth and getting haircuts.  But NASA sometimes shines lasers at them, which makes them mad.

Stanley Kubrick created the artificial moon, which is why he used the same video equipment in 2001: Space Oddysey and leaves clues about it in the Shining.

As for mythbusters:

1)  Photo is still fake (if we think it is the moon), it was just created without editing on a set.

2)  Same for this one.

3)  It can flap in a vacuum, but there was no vacuum on that picture.

4)  Same for this one.

5)  This is the same trick used by Kubrick.

6)  Nope, aliens.

Also, David Icke says that moon isn't even real.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 10:09 AM

What I assume supposed to be links aren't showing.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

Not to mention we can simply use a powerful enough telescope to see all of the shit (lander and parts, etc. the flag) that the astronauts left up there.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 12:59 PM

@Aristophanes: It is not true - as you stated in another thread - that amateur telescopy can resolve Apollo objects on the Moon. In any case, I await independent confirmation of Apollo sites from a non-governmental organization.

@eliotn: The "Moon landing" specifically means landing and returning human beings from the surface of the Moon. There is no in-principle reason why we could not have landed abiotic objects on the Moon either at the times the Apollo missions were supposedly landing men on the Moon or at some later date.

Mythbusters - as most "conspiracy debunkers" are wont to do - addressed only a few of the most absurd "conspiracy" theories, most of which are probably disinfo originating with the government itself.

Take a careful look at this and this. I would ask you to view the first footage several times over and really absorb what is depicted there and try as hard as you can to imagine the depictions arising merely as a result of low gravity. That footage is so visually baffling that I think it creates a prima facie presumption that Apollo 16 lunar footage was entirely faked. The next question is whether all the Apollo Moon footage was faked or not. As I asked in another thread: why fake just one video?

They had means, motive and opportunity to do it. The "lie" is an easy sell: national security, baby. We did it it to take the wind out of the Soviets and bankrupt them (success 1989!) as they fell for our world-class fakery and exhausted themselves trying to do IRL what we were merely faking. And we were only faking just a small part of the space program, 99% of it was genuine. Take this to your grave, boys, for God and country. And you'll be wealthy and successful as long as you play along... and we don't need to mention that bad things could happen to you - or your family - should you begin to make waves and cause problems... remember what happened to Grissom?

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 50
Not Ranked
Posts 225
Points 4,195

Do you not find it suspicious that a geologist was not sent?

'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 2:21 PM

+1 Rogan

The purpose of going to the Moon: So we could tell the Soviets, "We have bigger, brassier balls than you have." That and to invoke religious awe in the public at the awesome capability of the government: "When we put our minds to it, we can accomplish annnnnnnnnnnything!"

If you tell the man on the street that government is inefficient, what is one of the most common objections you will hear? "Well, yes, there is some waste but they did put a man on the Moon and you know that private industry could never make investments at that scale. We have microwaves, styrofoam and velcro thanks to NASA and the Space Program."

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 312
Points 4,310
Chyd3nius replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 2:22 PM

If it was faked, how they found the skeletons?

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 2:30 PM

So, in essence Clayton, the moon landing becomes a propaganda victory for the intellectuals, the opinion-shapers, creating a powerful argument for government action generally.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 871
Points 21,030
eliotn replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 2:45 PM

Ok, Clayton, I have a lot of questions and comments about this moon conspiracy theory.  But this isn't all of them.

First of all, if the goal was to get a man on the moon to "beat" the russians and invoke awe in the american public, then why not simply do it if possible?  Especially when people are going to be investigating this awe-inspiring event?

Second, mirrors were placed on the moon.  However, to make them useful for distance measurements, they need to be placed with precision.  Simply dropping them from a great height can damage them or cause them to move (remember no air resistance to cushion the fall. How do you do that without people physically coming on the moon?

Schools are labour camps.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

@Aristophanes: It is not true - as you stated in another thread - that amateur telescopy can resolve Apollo objects on the Moon. In any case, I await independent confirmation of Apollo sites from a non-governmental organization.

@eliotn: The "Moon landing" specifically means landing and returning human beings from the surface of the Moon. There is no in-principle reason why we could not have landed abiotic objects on the Moon either at the times the Apollo missions were supposedly landing men on the Moon or at some later date.

Mythbusters - as most "conspiracy debunkers" are wont to do - addressed only a few of the most absurd "conspiracy" theories, most of which are probably disinfo originating with the government itself.

Take a careful look at this and this. I would ask you to view the first footage several times over and really absorb what is depicted there and try as hard as you can to imagine the depictions arising merely as a result of low gravity. That footage is so visually baffling that I think it creates a prima facie presumption that Apollo 16 lunar footage was entirely faked. The next question is whether all the Apollo Moon footage was faked or not. As I asked in another thread: why fake just one video?

They had means, motive and opportunity to do it. The "lie" is an easy sell: national security, baby. We did it it to take the wind out of the Soviets and bankrupt them (success 1989!) as they fell for our world-class fakery and exhausted themselves trying to do IRL what we were merely faking. And we were only faking just a small part of the space program, 99% of it was genuine. Take this to your grave, boys, for God and country. And you'll be wealthy and successful as long as you play along... and we don't need to mention that bad things could happen to you - or your family - should you begin to make waves and cause problems... remember what happened to Grissom?

And all of the governments and private organizations that monitor NEO (organic satellites) keep this secret on behalf of the Western power elite?

The USSR gets amde a fool of (they killed their first astronaut bringing him back form orbit- he burned to death screaming blaming his government, I think the recordings are online) and they don't simply ... tell the other nations that will believe them. Castro and Chavez get on TV and denounce US weather weapons.  Why would Khrushchev not?

And, yes we do take credit for bankrupting the USSR even though that is not what happened.

99% of it was genuine.

So genuine that they kept the actual US government space program secret until 1992.  The NRO just builds spy satellites.  Why would the US government have policies to go to the moon way back then?  People in the US were more frugal than they are now (I think we know why).  There is no economic benefit to it.  Satellites, for spying, on the other hand...

If we are conspiricizing about the moon landing it makes more sense to me that the Nazis and the CIA (the banks and scientific minds with power) had a joint operation under the guise of a US space program.  They did go to the moon and the Soviets, as well as the US, know that the Nazis (today it would be their money and who controls it) are a more powerful underground force than people realize.  They did send theorist to Barcelona to hypothesize as if they lost the war; how they could escape, keep their money, etc.  Then, we have US intelligence pardons, Vatican ratlines; Israel had to hunt down some of the Nazis they wanted dead as far as the 1980's...and no one in the after war cleanup ended up with the bell.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 3:00 PM

First of all, if the goal was to get a man on the moon to "beat" the russians and invoke awe in the american public, then why not simply do it if possible?  Especially when people are going to be investigating this awe-inspiring event?

If Wernher von Braun was right when he wrote in Conquest of the Moon that the radiation in space was many times too great for unshielded travel, then it is likely that the test animals that were sent up into space retrurned dead and this was covered up.

I can't find the cite right now, but I recall reading that James Van Allen (after whom the radiation belts are named) actually worked with a Congressman for a period in the late 60's or early 70's to either halt or reorganize the NASA space program. I'll keep digging.

Second, mirrors were placed on the moon.  However, to make them useful for distance measurements, they need to be placed with precision.  Simply dropping them from a great height can damage them or cause them to move (remember no air resistance to cushion the fall. How do you do that without people physically coming on the moon?

Not sure. Radio telemetry maybe? I think that's an ancillary issue. Note that you can bounce and detect light pulses off the Moon with sensitive equipment even without a reflector. I'm only pointing this out to say that the mirror doesn't - in and of itself - prove that men were on the Moon.

And please, please, I want to head off any accusations of Ludditism. The reason we didn't put men on the Moon is not technological - with enough resources, I have no doubt that all the technological problems are solvable. The issue is purely economic. I think it is simply far more costly to send men out into space than people have been led to believe.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

I have zero doubt that Apollo was a complete fraud and that NASA is a fraudulent organisation.

Watch Apollo Zero if you have any questions after watching this short documentary in its entirety then we can try to answer those.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 5:46 PM
Take a careful look at this and this. I would ask you to view the first footage several times over and really absorb what is depicted there and try as hard as you can to imagine the depictions arising merely as a result of low gravity.
the chinese spacewalk seems faked, alright, but the moonwalks still seem real. The fact that the astronauts never jumped heights that one would expect is likely a result of caution and the stiffness of the suits restricting their movement. The image artifacts are interesting but not conclusive proof of anythng at this point.
That footage is so visually baffling that I think it creates a prima facie presumption that Apollo 16 lunar footage was entirely faked. The next question is whether all the Apollo Moon footage was faked or not. As I asked in another thread: why fake just one video?
I disagree with your interpretation of the footage but I will watch some more. My question is why would it be necessary to fake 6 separate landings? You fake one video to accomplish the mission (pretend to land on the moon in such a way that people believe you) and you dont fake 5 more to limit the evidence.
They had means, motive and opportunity to do it. The "lie" is an easy sell: national security, baby. We did it it to take the wind out of the Soviets and bankrupt them (success 1989!) as they fell for our world-class fakery and exhausted themselves trying to do IRL what we were merely faking. And we were only faking just a small part of the space program, 99% of it was genuine. Take this to your grave, boys, for God and country. And you'll be wealthy and successful as long as you play along... and we don't need to mention that bad things could happen to you - or your family - should you begin to make waves and cause problems... remember what happened to Grissom?
they had means, motive, and opportunity to land on the moon 6 times (plus a dry-run flyover). The motive was to find out what was up there, because generations of observations suggested that there was at least some sort of weather/seismic phenomena, and who knows what else? The apollo program was the greatest reconnaisance campaign in recorded human history, of course they wont tell us what they found.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

The apollo program was the greatest reconnaisance campaign in recorded human history, of course they wont tell us what they found.

This.

Because of this.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 5:52 PM
Wiki says Harrison Schmitt is a geologist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 5:59 PM
@Aristophanes,

yes, the social cohesion argument.

one of the things that I find interesting about the moon is how many facts are secret or covered up. Like, the moon has an atmosphere. And, the moon has water. And, transient lunar phenomena are largely unexplained, having been observed for hundreds of years. But youre loony if you question the official story. In my opinion thats why smart people do question the factual basis of human exploration of luna. There are so many lies and pieces of false evidence that its an initially plausible hypothesis. I simply dont think the case has been made, I lean more towards the opinion that the photographs were doctored to remove archaelogical evidence of settlement or non-terran technology.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 5:59 PM

@Malachi: So you have no issues whatsoever with the dangling feet and the "hoisting" of the "downed astronaut"?? I can't get myself to see how those effects are physically possible, regardless of the lower gravity. Can you speak on how you're seeing those play out in a low gravity environment?

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

The landing footage is a joke. Have you watched it recently? you can view it on youtube. If you think that footage is real, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

So you are more likely to believe in a NASA coverup of alien technology on the moon than you are that NASA fooled the world in to believing they landed on the moon? Some logic.

The biggest problem I face when dealing with trying to convince people that NASA is a fraud is their inability to conceive of it, the unwillingness to consider it and their general childish emotional attachment to the idea of space travel in all its glory.

 

When man finally does leave the atmosphere and go to the moon it will be on a ship the size of a skyscraper and the footage will be amazing. The technology will be able withstand extreme radiation, extreme climate conditions, have extreme propulsion technologies and super advanced camera technologies. Not some pathetic aluminium-cheap-1969 not even as advanced-as-my-android-phone non sense.

The footage of the stars a lone would be so mind blowing that it would be worth the hassle. Imagine the possibilities. :D

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 6:11 PM
I just watched the "dangling feet" section of the video repeatedly. I'm not seeing it. It looks like all the other footage, which all looks plausible to me. I've never been in an environment that was dominated by lunar gravity so I have no basis for comparison to "the real thing" but it doesnt seem to resemble the footage immediately after that in the test rig. As the the astronaut "being pulled to his feet" he braces himself against the ground and pushes off of the other astronaut with his left arm. His arm is mostly obscured by the other astronaut but you can see him put his arm there before he gets up and you can see part of it as he finishes standing. Of course the lifting appears to be done mostly with his pectoralis which would be a minor feat of strength unaided in earth gravity. I admit the sequence looks suspicious at first but it doesnt after you see the arm.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 871
Points 21,030
eliotn replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 6:15 PM

" I would ask you to view the first footage several times over and really absorb what is depicted there and try as hard as you can to imagine the depictions arising merely as a result of low gravity"

The problem is the presumption that low gravity alone will affect the photography in the moon like environment.  Vaccum conditions and the sun without an intervening atmosphere can also affect things.  In fact, it is really hard to simulate these things on earth.

" That footage is so visually baffling that I think it creates a prima facie presumption that Apollo 16 lunar footage was entirely faked."

Don't buy it.  The footage might look visually baffling if it was compared to equivelent footage on the earth.  Please establish that it would be visually baffling compared to what would be expected given the actual conditions on the moon.

Schools are labour camps.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 871
Points 21,030
eliotn replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 6:22 PM

Also Clayton, the radiation issue has been addressed.  The radiation amount is not deadly, and Van Allen actually himself refuted claims that the Van Allen belt stopped space travel.

While its true that the mirror itself doesn't by itself prove space travel, there are loads of other sources, independently verified by a bunch of sources.

Schools are labour camps.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 871
Points 21,030
eliotn replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 6:25 PM

"The footage of the stars a lone would be so mind blowing that it would be worth the hassle. Imagine the possibilities. :D"

Fail.  The stars weren't visible because of the sun.  Same effect as not being able to see stars when in a brightly lit area.

Schools are labour camps.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 6:25 PM
The landing footage is a joke. Have you watched it recently? you can view it on youtube. If you think that footage is real, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
if youre looking to persuade, this isnt the way to do it. What about "the footage" (a term that could hardly facilitate misunderstanding) is so obvious that I shouldnt need you to explain to me how fake it is?
So you are more likely to believe in a NASA coverup of alien technology on the moon than you are that NASA fooled the world in to believing they landed on the moon? Some logic.
theyre both plausible, the question is which hypothesis is supported by a coherent interpretation of the evidence. Thats the logic that seems to escape you.
The biggest problem I face when dealing with trying to convince people that NASA is a fraud is their inability to conceive of it, the unwillingness to consider it and their general childish emotional attachment to the idea of space travel in all its glory.
I disagree. Based on your post, the biggest problem you face is your own complete lack of persuasive argument. But you make up for it with arrogance and snide comments about other people's opinions, right?
When man finally does leave the atmosphere and go to the moon it will be on a ship the size of a skyscraper and the footage will be amazing.
They thought about that but they decided to go part of the way in a ship the size of a skyscraper and go the rest of the way in a series of seccessively smaller ships because orbital rendezvous was a lot more feasible than direct ascent, based on 1960s tech. They were still using slide rules at this point, remember.
The technology will be able withstand extreme radiation, extreme climate conditions, have extreme propulsion technologies and super advanced camera technologies.
Why would they abandon the totally awesome propulsion technologies and forget the hyper extra mega advanced camera technologies?
Not some pathetic aluminium-cheap-1969 not even as advanced-as-my-android-phone non sense.
people: do more with less

haters: talk shit because the people have "less"

The footage of the stars a lone would be so mind blowing that it would be worth the hassle. Imagine the possibilities. :D
I imagine it would be possible to fake it in the future too, especially with "super advanced camera technologies."
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 6:25 PM

Don't buy it.  The footage might look visually baffling if it was compared to equivelent footage on the earth.  Please establish that it would be visually baffling compared to what would be expected given the actual conditions on the moon.

That's what I'm saying, it's visually baffling even under conditions of low gravity - while you are lighter on the Moon, you are not weightless. With all those packs, I think the effective weight of the astronaut comes to around 70 pounds on Earth. I can't lift 70 pounds with my pinky and my big toe, but if you look closely at the "downed astronaut" footage, he springs up off the ground mid-section-first, supported only by the toes of one foot and half a hand. I'm pretty sure I couldn't lift 70 pounds (load-relieved of the rest of my weight) in that way.

Lighting and atmostphere are all irrelevant to this particular problem. And the point of mentioning wire harnesses is simply to note that the effects of low-gravity conditions on human movement are not difficult to reproduce here on Earth... in other words, it's not difficult at all to visualize what it should have looked like.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

I lean more towards the opinion that the photographs were doctored to remove archaelogical evidence of settlement or non-terran technology.

Quite possibly.  There are a few "scholars" (I can't really call them that because they aren't respected among the community) that have said towers and glass building remnants were obscured and that the Astronauts were 'obviously' brainwashed post debreifing when they got back.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 6:31 PM

@eliotn: I don't think it's true that the stars wouldn't be visible because of the Sun. The SOHO satellites look directly at the Sun and still resolve background stars. Many of the lunar photographs are pointed away from the Sun.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 6:36 PM
That's what I'm saying, it's visually baffling even under conditions of low gravity - while you are lighter on the Moon, you are not weightless. With all those packs, I think the effective weight of the astronaut comes to around 70 pounds on Earth. I can't lift 70 pounds with my pinky and my big toe, but if you look closely at the "downed astronaut" footage, he springs up off the ground mid-section-first, supported only by the toes of one foot and half a hand. I'm pretty sure I couldn't lift 70 pounds (load-relieved of the rest of my weight) in that way.
those astronauts were in peak physical condition, its quite plausible that they could do one-arm pushups.

as for the sun and the stars, I believe I heard that the sensitivity of the film they had in the 60s is what precludes an image of the sun and nearby stars, as the massive amount of radiation would require an extremely brief exposure, whereas the faintness of the stars would require a longer exposure. I dont have a reference for this but it seems like a technological problem that would be solved eventually.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 6:37 PM

Also Clayton, the radiation issue has been addressed.  The radiation amount is not deadly, and Van Allen actually himself refuted claims that the Van Allen belt stopped space travel.

I have no doubt that James Van Allen could have been persuaded to see the light on this issue. I'll try to dig up that quote where W. von Braun points out that the radiation is lethal to human beings and also a reference on Van Allen working against the space program in Congress.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 6:41 PM
@Aristophanes, I believe Richard Hoagland is one of those people. He writes some interesting things but I have a feeling he is a disinfo agent. Call it a hunch.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 871
Points 21,030
eliotn replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 6:47 PM

Clayton, its not as simple as artificially lowering gravity.  Vaccum conditions will change how other things appear on camera, how things fall (there is no air resistance to stop people from falling!), how the dust goes into the air and settles, and how flags will move.  Merely using harnesses would flag it as a hoax for other scientists, as it wouldn't replicate vaccum conditions.

Schools are labour camps.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 6:48 PM
Yah except the moon has an atmosphere. Its not a vaccuum.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 664
Points 13,095

@eliotn: I don't think it's true that the stars wouldn't be visible because of the Sun. The SOHO satellites look directly at the Sun and still resolve background stars. Many of the lunar photographs are pointed away from the Sun.

Clayton -

That's fake. A picture from a satellite wouldn't look like that. Space isn't blue.

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 7:00 PM
As always, it's hard to tell if youre trolling or just uninformed.

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question20.html

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

@Aristophanes, I believe Richard Hoagland is one of those people. He writes some interesting things but I have a feeling he is a disinfo agent. Call it a hunch.

hahahah, yeah, you think?  I'm willing to see as plausible the idea of ancient ruins on the moon, but not nazis escaping to space.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 9:14 PM

Malachi:
Yah except the moon has an atmosphere. Its not a vaccuum.

Barely. IIRC, they estimate that the average gaseous particle on the moon hit four other particles before escaping into space permanently. That's not an atmosphere. It's just a very tiny amount of gaseous coming off because of heat and the like.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 9:54 PM
They said there "might" be "minimal amounts" of water before they admitted that "hey folks, theres water on the moon!". So youll excuse me if I dont consider estimates like those to be authoritative. I also dont think that estimate is intuitive given luna has on average 1/6 earth gravity, and significant gravitational anomalies. There should be gases sticking to the surface.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Sep 24 2012 11:54 PM

Malachi:
They said there "might" be "minimal amounts" of water before they admitted that "hey folks, theres water on the moon!". So youll excuse me if I dont consider estimates like those to be authoritative. I also dont think that estimate is intuitive given luna has on average 1/6 earth gravity, and significant gravitational anomalies. There should be gases sticking to the surface.

Shouldn't be too hard to do the math on something like that though. They say if you hit a golfball off the moon, it's possible to achieve escape velocity. So, 1/6th or w/e is still a huge difference from earth. Solar wind alone would be scouring the moon of any possible gases.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 60
Points 825
s burgess replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 3:01 AM

whenever a conspiracy like this 911 vaccines come along i find it easy just to demise out of hand.think of all the people needed to pull it off.surely if such a conspiracy was endeavored the conspirers would need to be real sure they could pull it off.so why do so many people then believe in the conspiracy when the evidence should be hard to find?. the answers is simple believing you  are  seeing the world for what it really is confirms in people they have a higher capacity of reasoning above all those sheep they feel real good                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .when arguing against such conspiracies using knowledge of technology means methods ect you fall into a trap where by the believer will probably have far more information in support of their claim.so if the believer recognizes he knows more than you about the topic(think of how much time people spend watching docos and going to web sites aboout  conspiracies)they will interpret it as their  own greatness  once again confirming their belief about themselves (the real route of the problem).think about it does a muslim knowing more about the koran mean he right?.  

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Tue, Sep 25 2012 3:28 AM

Conversely, does one person having more information about something than you make it more likely that he is right or that you are right about that specific thing?

(Ie, one person is an applefarmer and apple theory hobbyist; and you've eaten an apple once, who is more likely to know more about apples. )

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 2 (78 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS