Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
moon hoax help...once again..
A2597
Fanboy
in Zocalo v2.0
OK, this whole lunar landing hoax thing is a BIG peeve of mine, pisses me off something awful nowadays...
Anyhoo, staying with my Sister and her husband over the summer...and tonight on National Geographic Channel they had a whole thing "Debunking the myth that the landings were faked".
Good, right? Well...no. They did a half assed job, and now my sister and her husband are even more certain that the landings were faked.
The BIG two reasons I can't get past right now, are the flag "Waving" (No shit sherlock, no atmosphere to hinder it...) Which they insist it waves too much and too far for there to be no wind...GAH.
And...no photos of the landing site.
OK, second one I get a little more confused on how to explain to them.
I understand that Hubble can only resolve things about 20 meters across on the moon, and that the European moon probe was roughly the same...so they couldn't see it. And ditto for land based telescopes.
Now...someone help me explain WHY in laymans terms that Hubble can see galaxys..and lots of them, but not a landing site on the moon? And why a land based telescope can see the rings on saturn, but not the landing sites?
Remember...laymans terms, stupid simple.
Gah. Probably a lost cause anyway, it just pisses me off that they write the lunar landings off as a matter of opinion rather than fact or not. (Thats their own words..."Matter of opinion, don't get worked up over it!")
ARGH
Anyhoo, staying with my Sister and her husband over the summer...and tonight on National Geographic Channel they had a whole thing "Debunking the myth that the landings were faked".
Good, right? Well...no. They did a half assed job, and now my sister and her husband are even more certain that the landings were faked.
The BIG two reasons I can't get past right now, are the flag "Waving" (No shit sherlock, no atmosphere to hinder it...) Which they insist it waves too much and too far for there to be no wind...GAH.
And...no photos of the landing site.
OK, second one I get a little more confused on how to explain to them.
I understand that Hubble can only resolve things about 20 meters across on the moon, and that the European moon probe was roughly the same...so they couldn't see it. And ditto for land based telescopes.
Now...someone help me explain WHY in laymans terms that Hubble can see galaxys..and lots of them, but not a landing site on the moon? And why a land based telescope can see the rings on saturn, but not the landing sites?
Remember...laymans terms, stupid simple.
Gah. Probably a lost cause anyway, it just pisses me off that they write the lunar landings off as a matter of opinion rather than fact or not. (Thats their own words..."Matter of opinion, don't get worked up over it!")
ARGH
Comments
Hubble:
[URL="http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html"]http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html[/URL]
[URL="http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=77&cat=topten"]http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=77&cat=topten[/URL]
You should ask your sister if she can see microbes on her finger when it's an inch away from her eye. No? Well that makes no sense! After all, she can see buildings down the street can't she, and they're so big and far away!
Flags:
[URL="http://www.clavius.org/envflutter.html"]http://www.clavius.org/envflutter.html[/URL]
You know what, just go to this whole site:
[URL="http://www.clavius.org/"]http://www.clavius.org/[/URL]
Do these people think microwave ovens are magic, and that cars are powered by pixie dust? Seriously, I have no idea how some people function with such a limited scientific knowledge. It doesn't even bother them that they don't know how things work.
*sigh*
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU5YyolUHAw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU5YyolUHAw[/URL]
And when you think about it, it makes perfect sense, and I can understand why they did what they did.
I've been to the Cape and I've seen the Apollo hardware used first-hand and I have been to a few shuttle launches, there's nothing fake about that. The Saturn-V rocket is HUGE.
As for the reasons why we can't see the hardware left on the moon from earth is a question of optics and resolution. Some of that is explained here:
[URL="http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134"]http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134[/URL]
Anyway, since the documentary above features some of the most famous compulsive liars ever, it's not difficult to understand why people have a hard time believing a single word that they are saying.
In short, what do you do when you don't have proof that you've been somewhere and everybody's watching? :D
[IMG]http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/pix/shtlsatv.jpg[/IMG]
And then when you look at pictures of the shuttle and the size of regular cars next to it, they start to look like toys...
[URL="http://www.nasa.gov/lb/returntoflight/multimedia/Pad-Rollback.html"]http://www.nasa.gov/lb/returntoflight/multimedia/Pad-Rollback.html[/URL]
Again, if you get the chance to go to Florida, make sure to drive by the Cape and check it out, there is no other place like it anywhere else on this planet.
And then come back and tell me it's fake... and I'll kick you in the nutsack. :D
I so wanna drive that thing...
Jake
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU5YyolUHAw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU5YyolUHAw[/URL]
And when you think about it, it makes perfect sense, and I can understand why they did what they did.[/QUOTE]
That "documentary" doesn't make perfect sense. It doesn't make [i]any[/i] sense.
That depends on what you mean by [I]any[/I]. :D
I watched the whole thing and I'm not sure what they are talking about either, except for the camera bit. Of course it's a documentary, anything that isn't scripted is a documentary, oh, wait, this one was scripted.... oh, well, can't win them all.
I know it gets confusing once Rumsfeld is starting to make sense. :D Can you believe how long he's been in office? He must be a Highlander, there is no other explanation.
[url]http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html[/url]
Let us also not forget that there were TV cameras on the moon broadcasting live footage, which were not affected by the environment to the point of being useless (except for Apollo 12's, when Al Bean pointed it directly at the Sun). It is also relatively easy to shield against radiative heat transfer, which is the only kind heating up the moon and causing those extreme temperature differences the person interviewed claimed would have destroyed the camera and film, by simply making your device white and/or reflective. Even without this, heat transfer is pretty slow. Temperatures on the Moon don't stay at one of two extremes with nothing in between, either.
[url]http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html[/url]
The footage from the moon is of relatively low quality and since it was broadcast, temperatures do not play as much into it. I'm not arguing about the live footage, although that could be just as easily faked by slowing down the frame rate. Again, Kubrick has done much better work. :D
Again, I'm just not convinced about those glorious pictures... they are a bit like Steven Spielbergs dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, too good to be true.
The subsequent moon landings would have given them opportunity to rectify those issues, I suppose, but initially, its doubtful.
[url]http://www.clavius.org/photoqual.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Stingray;161910]The footage from the moon is of relatively low quality and since it was broadcast, temperatures do not play as much into it. I'm not arguing about the live footage, although that could be just as easily faked by slowing down the frame rate. Again, Kubrick has done much better work. :D[/QUOTE]
Temperature [i]does[/i] play into it if you're arguing that the camera gets so cold that the lens shatters, which is what the person in that video you linked to claims.
Now that's funny, you are using a false argument (from the "documentary") against my theory of doctored images. He said, the [I]film[/I] would shatter, not the [I]lens[/I]. ;)
It's nice to know that we can look at "genuine" pictures of the moon missions, now that you can do anything in Photoshop it seems hardly relevant. :D
I'm kidding... I think I need to check out NASA's website more closely. I guess they should have made those pictures available sooner...
Dug
A few pics from my last trip to Kennedy
;)
My mistake. I recalled him saying the lens would shatter but didn't want to dirty my mind with watching an idiot again to make sure. He did say something about the lens, although I don't remember what, and the TV cameras clearly worked fine despite not being that different from the still-photo cameras.
[quote]I'm kidding... I think I need to check out NASA's website more closely. I guess they should have made those pictures available sooner...[/QUOTE]
They've been available for about as long as NASA has had a website and the money to pay someone to scan thousands of photos. I'm sure if you had wanted them before the days of the Internet, a request to NASA Archives would have got them.
It still amazes me at what they were able to accomplish with the Gemini and Apollo missions, with the technology that was available.
it's amazing stuff.
big guns..
I've never bothered to look for moon landing pictures before. I usually don't dwell on the past but I'll make an exception here. ;)
I've visited the facilities several times, once they had an "open doors" event and I've been in both launch control rooms, the Apollo and the space shuttle ones. I've been 5 inches away from the shuttle Discovery while it was in the orbiter processing facility (that's the hangar where the shuttle is still parked horizontally, where they check and replace the heat shield tiles and engines).
[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/silverstein/316154658/"]http://www.flickr.com/photos/silverstein/316154658/[/URL]
Unfortunately we were not allowed to take any pictures... but it's quite amazing. The facilities aren't very sexy, so you won't see anything as flashy as Star Trek, but what you do see actually works. :D The cape looks more like a factory site than a spaceport, so it's very functional and not pretty.
the first time, there was not a shuttle in sight, all the shuttles were locked up tight in the proccessing facilities. However, you know how on the tour they take you out to that big viewing platform near the pads? well that platform was closed for repairs, so instead of stopping the bus there, they drove us out to the Pads. No shuttle was on them, but it was still awesome, getting to see Pads 39A and B from a few yards away... priceless.
The 2nd time, since it was for a launch, i did get to see Discovery out on the Pad.
We are ofcourse, going to go back again this winter when we are in Florida, partly because i love the place (and there is supposed to be another Launch then) but also because they have their new Shuttle Liftoff Simulator done. and i'm dying to give that a go.
It's often easy to see just light even very far away, but it's not easy to see the details, often not even possible. Distances in space are so vast that you can mostly see just blurred spots of light of anything. Making out any small details from those distances is simply impossible.
- PJH