If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof   (gizmodo.com) divider line 144
    More: Obvious, moon landings, moons, landing  
•       •       •

12299 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Jan 2013 at 3:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



144 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-19 06:40:28 PM  

ParagonComplex: This is one conspiracy theory I never understood at all. Not in the least bit. There is a thin line between being wary about something and flat out being paranoid to a mentally unstable degree. I'm all about questioning things, but people need to be realistic.


Well, for people who do not understand photography (exposure, etc.) the initial concerns did seem to make sense. But once the concerns were addressed by the experts the house of cards should have collapsed.

But this is the issue with conspiracy theorists. They may start out on what seems like a firm foundation and build from there with little, otherwise inconsequential details. Then their foundation gets explained away and all they are left with is these inconsequential details which, on their own, should not raise any red flags. But they are emotionally invested and they hang on anyway.
 
2013-01-19 07:10:16 PM  

Mister Peejay: I think they were SO thorough in faking the landings that they put a soundstage on the Moon so they could get the effects just right.


The real story.
 
2013-01-19 07:16:53 PM  

gadian: The technology to fake it didn't exist, but the technology to shoot people to the moon did? I'm not a hoaxer, but that's pretty lame definitive proof.


Why? Rockets are basically a quite simple technology. Braun had rockets capable of reaching space, or a target five hundred miles away, during WWII, when TV barely existed and movies had only just got sound.
 
2013-01-19 08:25:14 PM  
Thanks Subby. I could listen to SG Collins all day.
 
2013-01-19 08:40:08 PM  

gadian: The technology to fake it didn't exist, but the technology to shoot people to the moon did? I'm not a hoaxer, but that's pretty lame definitive proof.


Speaking as an engineer, it is sufficient to disprove the claim.

If A requires B, and B cannot be true, then A cannot be true. This holds regardless of C.

A = Faked moonlanding
B = Technology to fake a moonlanding
C = Technology to perform a moondlanding.
 
2013-01-19 08:41:49 PM  
Full disclosure... my mentor at my first engineering job was an engineer on the Apollo program. So maybe they got to me too!
 
2013-01-19 09:13:41 PM  
In a nation of over 300 million people, there is going to be believers of just about any idea. The moon landing being faked would have been beyond imagineable. Frankly, if in some fairy parallel America where you could troll with such conviction, it would be more impressive than the actual moon landing.

I grew in SoCal in the 1970's, the entire region was one huge going to the moon economy.
 
2013-01-19 11:31:10 PM  
QA, shouldn't you be riding your bike thru a red light about now?
 
2013-01-20 12:47:25 AM  
Any Pie Left: "QA, shouldn't you be riding your bike thru a red light about now?"

Look out your window!
 
2013-01-20 01:30:51 AM  

Farking Canuck: This is not proof of men landing on the moon ... only proof that the technology existed to get something to the moon in a controlled fashion.


Unless you have a remote lander that will make sure the retroreflectors are both opened and the right way up, which didn't exist in that time, it's pretty damn indicative of men.
 
2013-01-20 04:28:52 AM  

bifford: I read somewhere that if you challenge a fanatical believer with a load of facts, he paradoxically will become even more entrenched in his beliefs. This video will have the opposite of the intended effect on the conspiracy theorists.


The only way to combat that level of crazy bullshiat is with more of the same. Or as they say, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-01-20 09:01:59 AM  

Flint Ironstag: Mister Peejay: I think they were SO thorough in faking the landings that they put a soundstage on the Moon so they could get the effects just right.

The real story.


AWESOME
 
2013-01-20 09:40:32 AM  

encyclopediaplushuman: Farking Canuck: This is not proof of men landing on the moon ... only proof that the technology existed to get something to the moon in a controlled fashion.

Unless you have a remote lander that will make sure the retroreflectors are both opened and the right way up, which didn't exist in that time, it's pretty damn indicative of men.


The Russians did that exact thing. Twice! They have two reflectors up there and they have never put men on the moon!!

Also, retro reflectors do not need careful alignment as their primary feature is that they reflect light back at the exact angle it comes in no matter what the angle. All you have to do is make sure it is right side up.
 
2013-01-20 10:06:00 AM  

Nem Wan: the801: there was absolutely no way to fake it at the time. Even the cameras needed to fake it didn't exist back then.

challengeaccepted.jpg

The moon stuff in 2001: A Space Odyssey does not look real. It looks good, for a movie, but it looks like fiction.


Just a red herring argument here but, at the time given it was there first glimpse of the moon, wouldn't it have been 'real' enough? How would the public at the time know?
 
2013-01-20 10:50:48 AM  

Farking Canuck: All you have to do is make sure it is right side up.


And all you need to do THAT is to butter the bottom.
 
2013-01-20 11:02:03 AM  

vd61: Nem Wan: the801: there was absolutely no way to fake it at the time. Even the cameras needed to fake it didn't exist back then.

challengeaccepted.jpg

The moon stuff in 2001: A Space Odyssey does not look real. It looks good, for a movie, but it looks like fiction.


Just a red herring argument here but, at the time given it was there first glimpse of the moon, wouldn't it have been 'real' enough? How would the public at the time know?


They wouldn't. But it would have come out since then. At the time everyone expected the Russians to get there pretty soon, if not actually beat the US. The US could have faked the landing fantastically but if the Russians got there a year later and found it was completely different it would have blown the scam. Could the US have taken that risk? Being beaten would be bad enough. To be beaten and found to have faked it would be far worse.
 
2013-01-20 12:48:46 PM  
HIGGS BOMB technical info. Original documents cannot be repoduced online due to ECHELON. Only a summary is given here.

Due to a loophole in the post-war treaty, GERMANY is not restricted from developing particle-level explosive devices. Much research has been carried out as black-ops at CERN and in distributed computer simulation. As with earlier (ultimately unsuccessful) QUARK BOMB research, many of the theoretical problems have been solved UNKNOWINGLY by users of internet gaming sites, who were led to believe they were solving level puzzles in MMOs.

The trigger for the HIGGS BOMB is a kiloton-range Plutonium triggered fissile device, as used in thermonuclear (or H-BOMB) devices. This effectively replaces the large ring-accelarator needed at CERN to create high-energy collisions. To convert the fissile device's gamma burst into the e+/e- particles required for the HIGGS REACTION, a resonant lattice of nano-structured Silicon is required.

This is expensive to produce using conventional laser-etching process, but experimentation has shown that the wafers from gigabyte-range SDRAM DIMMs may be used if a 40% drop in device efficiency is acceptable (high-quality DIMMs are required: Apple-brand was tested among others). The silicon from 20,000 to 100,000 8GB DIMMs is sufficient for a 10,000-megatonne device.

The emitted HIGGS BOSONS must be allowed to pass into a "tamper" made up of 25-50KG of RED MERCURY to allow their energy to be released (before they decay into harmless fermions).

HIGGS BOMB resembles a large laptop on standard airport scanners, but can be reliably detected due to the weight in excess of 100Kg and the characteristic magnetic signature of the red mercury.
 
2013-01-20 01:04:41 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: HIGGS BOMB technical info. Original documents cannot be repoduced online due to ECHELON. Only a summary is given here.

Due to a loophole in the post-war treaty, GERMANY is not restricted from developing particle-level explosive devices. Much research has been carried out as black-ops at CERN and in distributed computer simulation. As with earlier (ultimately unsuccessful) QUARK BOMB research, many of the theoretical problems have been solved UNKNOWINGLY by users of internet gaming sites, who were led to believe they were solving level puzzles in MMOs.

The trigger for the HIGGS BOMB is a kiloton-range Plutonium triggered fissile device, as used in thermonuclear (or H-BOMB) devices. This effectively replaces the large ring-accelarator needed at CERN to create high-energy collisions. To convert the fissile device's gamma burst into the e+/e- particles required for the HIGGS REACTION, a resonant lattice of nano-structured Silicon is required.

This is expensive to produce using conventional laser-etching process, but experimentation has shown that the wafers from gigabyte-range SDRAM DIMMs may be used if a 40% drop in device efficiency is acceptable (high-quality DIMMs are required: Apple-brand was tested among others). The silicon from 20,000 to 100,000 8GB DIMMs is sufficient for a 10,000-megatonne device.

The emitted HIGGS BOSONS must be allowed to pass into a "tamper" made up of 25-50KG of RED MERCURY to allow their energy to be released (before they decay into harmless fermions).

HIGGS BOMB resembles a large laptop on standard airport scanners, but can be reliably detected due to the weight in excess of 100Kg and the characteristic magnetic signature of the red mercury.


Um, OK> Not sure what that has to do with moon landings and what not but okay then. o.o
 
2013-01-20 01:10:31 PM  
9/11 was faked on the same sound stage as the Apollo program.
 
2013-01-20 01:40:42 PM  

bbfreak: THE GREAT NAME: HIGGS BOMB technical info. Original documents cannot be repoduced online due to ECHELON. Only a summary is given here.

Due to a loophole in the post-war treaty, GERMANY is not restricted from developing particle-level explosive devices. Much research has been carried out as black-ops at CERN and in distributed computer simulation. As with earlier (ultimately unsuccessful) QUARK BOMB research, many of the theoretical problems have been solved UNKNOWINGLY by users of internet gaming sites, who were led to believe they were solving level puzzles in MMOs.

The trigger for the HIGGS BOMB is a kiloton-range Plutonium triggered fissile device, as used in thermonuclear (or H-BOMB) devices. This effectively replaces the large ring-accelarator needed at CERN to create high-energy collisions. To convert the fissile device's gamma burst into the e+/e- particles required for the HIGGS REACTION, a resonant lattice of nano-structured Silicon is required.

This is expensive to produce using conventional laser-etching process, but experimentation has shown that the wafers from gigabyte-range SDRAM DIMMs may be used if a 40% drop in device efficiency is acceptable (high-quality DIMMs are required: Apple-brand was tested among others). The silicon from 20,000 to 100,000 8GB DIMMs is sufficient for a 10,000-megatonne device.

The emitted HIGGS BOSONS must be allowed to pass into a "tamper" made up of 25-50KG of RED MERCURY to allow their energy to be released (before they decay into harmless fermions).

HIGGS BOMB resembles a large laptop on standard airport scanners, but can be reliably detected due to the weight in excess of 100Kg and the characteristic magnetic signature of the red mercury.

Um, OK> Not sure what that has to do with moon landings and what not but okay then. o.o


Moon landings were faked to explain the high cost of the red mercury manufacturing...

...or...

Moon landings were real because the red mercury can only be found on the moon
 
2013-01-20 04:48:09 PM  

TonyDanza: Keizer_Ghidorah: People who deny the Moon landing ARE idiots. All you need to do is look up there with a telescope and see the landers and junk we've left there.

Said telescope does not exist. Even if you used Hubble all you would see is a dot, not really proof that we left stuff there.

That being said, it wasn't faked.


Actually the optical interferometer (CHARA) on Mt. Wilson has sufficient resolution to image the bootprints.
 
2013-01-20 10:09:27 PM  

ursomniac: Actually the optical interferometer (CHARA) on Mt. Wilson has sufficient resolution to image the bootprints.


I am not familiar with CHARA but I highly doubt your information is correct.

Here is some detailed math that demonstrates that we have nothing on Earth that can come within orders of magnitude of seeing the landers or rovers (much less a boot print): Link

Here is the math for Hubble: Link (again, not even close)

The only thing that comes close are the lunar orbiters like the LRO. Even then the rovers are literally two pixels wide. They are photographed at lunar sunrise/sunset so that the long shadows make them easier to spot.

Some shots here: Link (GIS "lro moon lander photos" for many more)

blogs.discovermagazine.com
 
2013-01-20 11:18:50 PM  

Farking Canuck: ursomniac: Actually the optical interferometer (CHARA) on Mt. Wilson has sufficient resolution to image the bootprints.

I am not familiar with CHARA but I highly doubt your information is correct.

Here is some detailed math that demonstrates that we have nothing on Earth that can come within orders of magnitude of seeing the landers or rovers (much less a boot print): Link

Here is the math for Hubble: Link (again, not even close)

The only thing that comes close are the lunar orbiters like the LRO. Even then the rovers are literally two pixels wide. They are photographed at lunar sunrise/sunset so that the long shadows make them easier to spot.

Some shots here: Link (GIS "lro moon lander photos" for many more)

[blogs.discovermagazine.com image 540x342]


So, we can see quasars and galaxies that are 15 billion light-years away, but we can't see the lander on a planetary body right next to us?
 
2013-01-20 11:23:33 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: So, we can see quasars and galaxies that are 15 billion light-years away, but we can't see the lander on a planetary body right next to us?


Yes. Exactly.

The math is all there in the links I provided. It is not overly complex math either although it might be a bit daunting if you are not used to doing calculations with angular measurements.
 
2013-01-20 11:28:59 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: So, we can see quasars and galaxies that are 15 billion light-years away, but we can't see the lander on a planetary body right next to us?


Here is a Hubble shot of the moon. Looks great (there are higher-res versions) but that big crater in the lower left is 200 km across. Good luck making out a 1m x 2m object at this magnification.

imgsrc.hubblesite.org
 
2013-01-21 12:11:27 AM  

Farking Canuck: Keizer_Ghidorah: So, we can see quasars and galaxies that are 15 billion light-years away, but we can't see the lander on a planetary body right next to us?

Yes. Exactly.

The math is all there in the links I provided. It is not overly complex math either although it might be a bit daunting if you are not used to doing calculations with angular measurements.


I suck at math, period. And can't they just, you know, zoom in?
 
2013-01-21 01:41:20 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: So, we can see quasars and galaxies that are 15 billion light-years away, but we can't see the lander on a planetary body right next to us?


Those quasars and galaxies are millions of light-years across. The moonlanding equipment is a few metres in diameter, tops. It's not about distance, it's about size.

The Hubble was never designed to look at something that close anyway. It's a deep space telescope and does not have the right focusing telemetry to pinpoint objects on the moon. But as was shown, lunar satellites can pick them up, albeit vaguely.
 
2013-01-21 05:11:44 AM  

Ishkur: Those quasars and galaxies are millions of light-years across. The moonlanding equipment is a few metres in diameter, tops. It's not about distance, it's about size.

The Hubble was never designed to look at something that close anyway. It's a deep space telescope and does not have the right focusing telemetry to pinpoint objects on the moon. But as was shown, lunar satellites can pick them up, albeit vaguely.


Quasars are solar-system sized. We see the light from them but do not resolve them. It's not about the distance or the size, it's about their ratio when you want to see details and not just record how many photons you get from them.

And FTR, galaxies will come in at a range of sizes, but hundreds of thousands of light years or less is probably a better general figure than millions. And actually the quasars are easier to see since they're not resolved and their light is concentrated into a point source given telescope optics.

Hubble focuses fine on any distant object, and the moon is plenty far enough away. There is again the issue of resolution, and for Hubble, brightness. Under normal circumstances and normal operations, the moon is just too bright for Hubble to look at.

/Astronomer
//quasar expert
///Hubble user
 
2013-01-21 05:46:03 AM  

Ishkur: Keizer_Ghidorah: So, we can see quasars and galaxies that are 15 billion light-years away, but we can't see the lander on a planetary body right next to us?

Those quasars and galaxies are millions of light-years across. The moonlanding equipment is a few metres in diameter, tops. It's not about distance, it's about size.

The Hubble was never designed to look at something that close anyway. It's a deep space telescope and does not have the right focusing telemetry to pinpoint objects on the moon. But as was shown, lunar satellites can pick them up, albeit vaguely.


Weird.

But I recall that I said telescopes, not the Hubble. Earthbound, on the ground telescopes. Can we see the Moon lander, flag, and other things with those?
 
2013-01-21 06:10:01 AM  

mbrother: Quasars are solar-system sized.


or 4 billion lightyears
 
2013-01-21 06:11:51 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: But I recall that I said telescopes, not the Hubble. Earthbound, on the ground telescopes. Can we see the Moon lander, flag, and other things with those?


No.

Remember: You're trying to find something a few feet in size that's 250,000 miles away.
 
2013-01-21 06:24:57 AM  

Ishkur: mbrother: Quasars are solar-system sized.

or 4 billion lightyears


I know you're going to follow it up with "that's a quasar CLUSTER and not a single quasar" because being pedantic is really important in a discussion like this, so let me follow it up with:

How close do quasars need to be to one another to be considered a cluster or a group, and how many quasars are needed to be a contiguous cluster 4 billion light-years in diameter?
 
2013-01-21 07:25:23 AM  

Ishkur: I know you're going to follow it up with "that's a quasar CLUSTER and not a single quasar" because being pedantic is really important in a discussion like this, so let me follow it up with:

How close do quasars need to be to one another to be considered a cluster or a group, and how many quasars are needed to be a contiguous cluster 4 billion light-years in diameter?


That's a brand new result. Cool! And it's from reputable people, although when I get back from traveling I'll ask my buddy, an expert in quasar CLUSTERING, what he thinks about it...

Well, the short answer is a "crapload" and it would depend on how faint a luminosity you went to (but I'd estimate thousands at least, although fewer may have been observed). This structure spans a chunk of the observable universe and if real is by far larger than any recognizable structure. And I wouldn't even say these quasars are related to each other, probably, and certainly not gravitationally interacting with each other directly (just indirectly through the entire cluster mass). My immediate thought would be that there's an overdensity in the universe that led to a higher probability of quasars being formed in this region.

Normally we do not see small groups of quasars directly associated with each other, the exception being a relatively small percentage of binary quasars. They tend to be solitary. "Clusters" of quasars are not quite the same thing as clusters of stars or clusters of galaxies, again, they trace large scale density fluctuations rather than being co-formed groups directly interacting with each other.
 
2013-01-21 08:30:58 AM  
Neat.

I want you in every astronomy thread for now on, k? ....especially when the Creationists show up.

Be diligent and check the Geek tab at least once a day.

cheers.
 
2013-01-21 12:34:14 PM  
Keizer_Ghidorah

People who deny the Moon landing ARE idiots. All you need to do is look up there with a telescope and see the landers and junk we've left there.


not-sure-if-serious.jpg
 
2013-01-21 03:10:27 PM  

Fano: Frozboz: Great video. The guy makes a real point. By putting faith into these wackjob conspiracies (which, by the way can be proven false by the physical proof ON THE MOON that we landed there), we ignore some real, actual conspiracies of a less dramatic but possibly more dangerous nature going on around us.

Like the true purpose of aglets?


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-21 03:14:17 PM  

Mister Peejay: What other things can we say never happened?

I've got one. Atomic bomb don't exist, they're just a fabrication to keep populations in line.

/have YOU ever seen an atomic blast?


No, but there is a 70 year old guy in Japan that was born with 6 testicles whose Mother would like to have a word with you.
 
2013-01-21 03:32:33 PM  

FTDA: Fano: Frozboz: Great video. The guy makes a real point. By putting faith into these wackjob conspiracies (which, by the way can be proven false by the physical proof ON THE MOON that we landed there), we ignore some real, actual conspiracies of a less dramatic but possibly more dangerous nature going on around us.

Like the true purpose of aglets?

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 329x153]


Their true purpose is sinister.
 
2013-01-21 06:22:43 PM  

bifford: I read somewhere that if you challenge a fanatical believer with a load of facts, he paradoxically will become even more entrenched in his beliefs. This video will have the opposite of the intended effect on the conspiracy theorists.


It's more to make sure the fanatic doesn't convert others.

6% believing the moon landings were fake = "meh, look at these nutjobs and laugh and point!"

I can't seem to Google a reliable source for what percentage of the US population believing 9/11 was an "Inside Job", but I've heard anything from 1% to 30%. If it's anything above 10%, we have a problem IMO.
 
2013-01-21 08:33:34 PM  

Ishkur: Keizer_Ghidorah: But I recall that I said telescopes, not the Hubble. Earthbound, on the ground telescopes. Can we see the Moon lander, flag, and other things with those?

No.

Remember: You're trying to find something a few feet in size that's 250,000 miles away.


So it's either "The telescope is too powerful" or "The telescope isn't powerful enough".
 
2013-01-21 08:44:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: So it's either "The telescope is too powerful" or "The telescope isn't powerful enough".


Well, let's be honest: Who wants a telescope that is only calibrated to see small things 250,000 miles away?
 
2013-01-21 09:28:39 PM  

Ishkur: Keizer_Ghidorah: So it's either "The telescope is too powerful" or "The telescope isn't powerful enough".

Well, let's be honest: Who wants a telescope that is only calibrated to see small things 250,000 miles away?


We have microscopes that can see atoms, is it that hard to make a telescope that can see the surface of the Moon up-close and with detail?
 
2013-01-21 09:45:14 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Ishkur: Keizer_Ghidorah: So it's either "The telescope is too powerful" or "The telescope isn't powerful enough".

Well, let's be honest: Who wants a telescope that is only calibrated to see small things 250,000 miles away?

We have microscopes that can see atoms, is it that hard to make a telescope that can see the surface of the Moon up-close and with detail?


Short answer, no. Long answer, noooooooooooooooooo!

Or if you want to skip context, here is the important part of why the answer is no.

Using a bigger telescope won't help much. You'd need a mirror 50 times bigger than Hubble's to see the landers at all, and we don't have a 100 meter telescope handy.

Its a lot easier to shoot lasers at the moon, and bounce them off the equipment we left there. LRO's images are from around 31 miles up, and yet they still look like this. Which I think is pretty amazing, but obviously isn't going to satisfy a lot of people who have this Hollywood mindset of NASA.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-21 09:47:41 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: We have microscopes that can see atoms, is it that hard to make a telescope that can see the surface of the Moon up-close and with detail?


Microscopes can see all sorts of things at the micro level, which makes them a fair bit more useful than a telescope that can only see one thing 250,000 miles away.

Like tonight, for instance. Jupiter is right beside the moon. Most telescopes can see both in clear detail. Some better ones can even see Jupiter's moons. What use is a telescope that could see one but not both?

Think multi-purpose here.
 
Displayed 44 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report