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  
•       •       •

12296 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
 
2013-01-19 02:17:43 AM
Because the Russians had every reason to prove it was fake, and they didn't?
 
2013-01-19 03:06:23 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Because the Russians had every reason to prove it was fake, and they didn't?


But don't you see? That just indicates the sheer depth of the conspiracy! They were so thorough, they even had the Russians playing along with the hoax.
 
2013-01-19 03:19:07 AM
If NASA has no problem with faking great achievements, why haven't they done any others? Especially with the CGI at their disposal these days.

/wait, lemmee guess: The Mars landers are all in Arizona, right?
 
2013-01-19 03:39:33 AM

Ishkur: If NASA has no problem with faking great achievements, why haven't they done any others? Especially with the CGI at their disposal these days.

/wait, lemmee guess: The Mars landers are all in Arizona, right?


What about those amazing Hubble shop-fu?
 
2013-01-19 03:40:25 AM
The moon landings WERE faked, subby. If we had actually sent people to the moon they would have seen evidence that our Tyrant in Chief, Fartbongo, was actually a moonlizard sent to earth to weaken our country for the coming invasion. Why do you think there's so much controversy surrounding the birf certificate? ITS BECAUSE IT WAS FAKED TOO! Now that he's going after our guns it means the invasion is imminent.

You sheeple just won't listen. A brave moonlizard has rebelled against her people and come to earth to try to warn us, disguising herself as a lawyer/dentist so as not to alert her brethren...but even she has been met with laughter and derision at every turn while she tries to expose Obamallamadingo's deception.

Frankly I'm disgusted with this whole country, you're going to get the moonlizard masters you deserve, and I'm gonna laugh and laugh and laugh from within my protected bunker.
 
2013-01-19 03:42:19 AM
fun video
and YAY
now I can just slap the nuts, KNOWING that it wasnt faked
 
2013-01-19 03:43:52 AM
FTFA:
It's not about showing how ignorant the hoaxers demonstrate to be with their idiotic "proofs", which actually show they don't know anything about physics, photography or even perspective. Or the fact that simple there's tons of physical proof that we were there.

Somehow I bet those idiots can at least write an intelligible sentence.
 
2013-01-19 03:51:07 AM
The guy is very entertaining and funny, I like it. If you ever really needed proof, shoot a laser at the retro-reflectors we left on the Moon.
 
2013-01-19 03:54:17 AM
Very good video. Every time I talk to a moon hoax believer it makes me want to

students.ou.edu
 
2013-01-19 03:58:29 AM
Jesus Diaz is faked, he's actually a pseudonym that other Gizmodo writers use when they want to troll. :D
 
2013-01-19 04:04:56 AM
Somebody contact Joe Rogan.

/Neil deGrasse Tyson just debunked most of his nonsensical conspiracy theories last week
 
2013-01-19 04:14:51 AM

Yuri Futanari: The moon landings WERE faked, subby. If we had actually sent people to the moon they would have seen evidence that our Tyrant in Chief, Fartbongo, was actually a moonlizard sent to earth to weaken our country for the coming invasion.


I, for one, welcome vote for our new lizard people overlords.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-19 04:16:17 AM
I admire the guys effort. Personally I tend to lump moon hoaxers, birthers, truthers, etc into the same nutjob category, and laugh and ignore them. Which probably isn't a good idea, but it sure helps keep my blood pressure in check.
 
2013-01-19 04:31:24 AM

Old enough to know better: I admire the guys effort. Personally I tend to lump moon hoaxers, birthers, truthers, etc into the same nutjob category, and laugh and ignore them. Which probably isn't a good idea, but it sure helps keep my blood pressure in check.


To be fair, the moon landing was a huge effort, so something like a quarter of us have grandparents or parents that were directly involved (my grandfather was a NASA employee, for instance). So... pretty damned easy to dismiss emotionally before you bring the intellectual "all these arguments are literally indicative of a mental defect, because they make no goddamned logical/scientific sense whatsoever" aspect into it.
 
2013-01-19 04:51:52 AM
People will believe any crap from the youtubes these days.
 
2013-01-19 05:06:36 AM

encyclopediaplushuman: The guy is very entertaining and funny, I like it. If you ever really needed proof, shoot a laser at the retro-reflectors we left on the Moon.


I was going to mention those. Or there is all the other gear left laying up there that various orbiters have seen since then.
 
2013-01-19 05:09:38 AM
They're real and they're spectacular....

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-19 05:27:58 AM

Ishkur: If NASA has no problem with faking great achievements, why haven't they done any others? Especially with the CGI at their disposal these days.

/wait, lemmee guess: The Mars landers are all in Arizona, right?


Ha! Another sheep who believes "Arizona" exists!
 
2013-01-19 05:28:54 AM
"Global Dick Wagger" is going to be my new Fark troll handle.
 
2013-01-19 05:40:34 AM
I've seen an Apollo launch up close. That shiat was going to the moon.
 
2013-01-19 05:57:32 AM
The more "definitive" the proof you offer, the harder the tards will double down on the derp. It's an unwinable argument. They just need to be slapped every time they open their mouths.
 
2013-01-19 05:57:34 AM

Jim_Callahan:
To be fair, the moon landing was a huge effort, so something like a quarter of us have grandparents or parents that were directly involved (my grandfather was a NASA employee, for instance).


I don't think I have any blood relatives that worked on any of that stuff but when I was a kid I did go to church with a guy that was sort of a surrogate grandfather to me. He was on the ground crew for Apollo 11. i wish I could remember his name. I still have a NASA hardhat labeled as being for the ground crew on that mission and a box of spare parts. Yes, I really do have a box of spare rocket parts from NASA. Nothing too terribly exciting, just some cable couplers but for a kid who was obsessed with space those were two of the most awesome gifts I ever could have even possibly received. Close behind those was a military supply drop parachute. I can't count how many neighborhood injuries can directly be attributed to me and other idiot kids having a parachute and no real understanding of physics.

Also, if people think we weren't going to the moon then where do they think those giant rockets with tons and tons of fuel we being fired to? Those weren't just shown on TV/film. There were crowds of people watching those launches, Or at the other end of the problem where do they suppose the capsules full of astronauts were being dropped from?
 
2013-01-19 06:08:50 AM
I dont think this was faked, but articles that openly mock people who have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion different from their own on a contraversial issue as "idots" always raise a red flag with me.

although, I would characterize six percent of people in america to BE idiots, so maybe. It just always seems like the author of these types of articles is just trying to strengthen his own position by degrading the other side.
 
2013-01-19 06:13:56 AM

I sound fat: I dont think this was faked, but articles that openly mock people who have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion different from their own on a contraversial issue as "idots" always raise a red flag with me.


Well, it's a good thing the video didn't do that.
 
2013-01-19 06:16:06 AM
I remember that our teachers had TV sets brought into the classrooms so we could watch the moon landing live. My brother was a metallurgist, working at San Dia labs at the time, and was part of the team that analyzed the moon rocks after the mission. He sent me a bunch of 8x10 prints of pictures taken during the mission. Wish I still had those.
 
2013-01-19 06:18:58 AM

I sound fat: I dont think this was faked, but articles that openly mock people who have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion different from their own on a contraversial issue as "idots" always raise a red flag with me.


What's controversial about going to the moon? Nothing. The reason people regard moon hoaxers as idiots is that they are idiots.
 
2013-01-19 06:21:13 AM

vinniethepoo: I remember that our teachers had TV sets brought into the classrooms so we could watch the moon landing live. My brother was a metallurgist, working at San Dia labs at the time, and was part of the team that analyzed the moon rocks after the mission. He sent me a bunch of 8x10 prints of pictures taken during the mission. Wish I still had those.


I remember watching Apollo 11 on TV as a kid.
 
2013-01-19 06:22:57 AM

Ed Grubermann: I sound fat: I dont think this was faked, but articles that openly mock people who have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion different from their own on a contraversial issue as "idots" always raise a red flag with me.

What's controversial about going to the moon? Nothing. The reason people regard moon hoaxers as idiots is that they are idiots.


Indeed. It ain't like, an opinion, maaann. This isn't "The Beatles vs. Lady Gaga" or something.
 
2013-01-19 06:27:50 AM
Wouldn't the physics dictate that the mass was going to the moon once you did all the math?

//Deniers are not very good the the Calculus
 
2013-01-19 06:28:28 AM
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.
 
2013-01-19 06:44:04 AM

I sound fat: I dont think this was faked, but articles that openly mock people who have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion different from their own on a contraversial issue as "idots" always raise a red flag with me.

although, I would characterize six percent of people in america to BE idiots, so maybe. It just always seems like the author of these types of articles is just trying to strengthen his own position by degrading the other side.


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.
 
2013-01-19 06:59:11 AM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

This guy's probably still not impressed. (Adam Curry, yes, actually questions the moon landing.)
 
2013-01-19 07:02:24 AM
yeah...a pretty good video from a guy who believes in Palmistry....
 
2013-01-19 07:14:14 AM

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.


Pshaw. NASA has used its super-secret Area 51-enhanced technology to alter all telescopes to make them display "landers and junk" whenever you look at the moon.

/gosh, this conspiracy stuff is easy
 
2013-01-19 07:16:28 AM
Almost as if processing information requires very little energy but advanced understanding of how matter behaves on the small scale so you can make smaller and smaller electronics. But that same understanding also shows that on the big side, well, rockets and cars still look the same in those old videos, eh?

/Nice rack mount Tektronix oscilloscopes.
 
2013-01-19 07:18:50 AM

Old enough to know better: I admire the guys effort. Personally I tend to lump moon hoaxers, birthers, truthers, etc into the same nutjob category, and laugh and ignore them. Which probably isn't a good idea, but it sure helps keep my blood pressure in check.


Don't forget about the people that believe the earth is flat. Or hollow.
 
2013-01-19 07:21:51 AM
By the way, who's the guy in the video, and what are his qualifications? I can't get to the YouTube page with the description on my phone & the guid wyfe has the computer tied up tonight.
 
2013-01-19 07:38:02 AM
Or the fact that the Soviet Union was monitoring it too and accepted the American victory in the Space Race.

Uh, the Soviets were first in everything but the race to the moon. They won the space race.
 
2013-01-19 07:41:55 AM
So what. I shook Booker T's hand last night.

*shaking fist*

Top that, planetary satellite!
 
2013-01-19 07:46:39 AM

Neondistraction: Don't forget about the people that believe the earth is flat.


The earth is flat. It is also round. So the two statement do not contradict. :)
 
2013-01-19 07:47:30 AM
Another really good one is the video of them driving the rover around on the moon.

original
HD, stabilized

Even if you had a stadium-sized vaccuum chamber in order to have all the dust kicked up fall back at once, it would be impossible due to Earth's higher gravity to see rooster trails like that, unless we're to believe that inside our stadium-chamber were people at 40% scale running at 2.5x normal speed. Or that despite being recorded using high-speed cameras in order to fake the rooster trails, everything else behaves exactly as it would at normal speed.

For the lulz, watch some old school car-chase or other slowed down/sped up SFX videos. Or for similar effect, an old Godzilla movie where huge Godzilla is a guy in a suit. Everything in such videos exhibits comically "wrong" behavior precisely because time passes at the wrong rate, but this is precisely what we do not see in Apollo videos.

/But there were no stars in the sky!
//The stars are going out...
 
2013-01-19 08:03:32 AM

Lukeonia1: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Because the Russians had every reason to prove it was fake, and they didn't?

But don't you see? That just indicates the sheer depth of the conspiracy! They were so thorough, they even had the Russians playing along with the hoax.


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.
 
2013-01-19 08:06:53 AM

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.


awesome
 
2013-01-19 08:07:21 AM
there was absolutely no way to fake it at the time. Even the cameras needed to fake it didn't exist back then.

haroonriaz.files.wordpress.com

challengeaccepted.jpg
 
2013-01-19 08:12:01 AM
Good video. Near the end the guy actually gives a technical rundown from a film perspective of what would need to be done to fake the moon landings. Which would be monumentally difficult and require specialized equipment the film industry had never seen up to that point. I could just see a Moon landing denier jumping on that and saying "See? you just listed off how to do it and ruined your own argument."
 
2013-01-19 08:20:00 AM

Suede head: Or the fact that the Soviet Union was monitoring it too and accepted the American victory in the Space Race.

Uh, the Soviets were first in everything but the race to the moon. They won the space race.


It depends how you look at it. Sputnik was a metallic ball with a radio. The first US satellite discovered the Van Allen belts. The Soviet flights for a few years after Gagarin were basically a repeat -- the same uncontrollable Vostok craft, different people (one of them a woman). In the meantime, the US executed successfully flight with manual control, first docking in space and so on and so on, culminating in the series of (fake, naturally) Moon landings.

While both programs had propaganda as an important goal, and the USSR had two important "firsts", the US space program was the more pragmatic and useful one by a wide margin.
 
2013-01-19 08:47:05 AM

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.

Even today, while it may be technically possible to create a photorealistic image of anything, accurately simulating the lunar environment to stand up to knowledgable scrutiny is very, very hard and expensive. The lunar scenes in Transformers Dark Side of the Moon and Apollo 18 aren't perfect because the very high cost to get from good to perfect isn't justified by the number of viewers who will care. Even if it was attempted it would be hard to be error free.
 
Slu
2013-01-19 08:59:01 AM

I sound fat: I dont think this was faked, but articles that openly mock people who have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion different from their own on a contraversial issue as "idots" always raise a red flag with me.

although, I would characterize six percent of people in america to BE idiots, so maybe. It just always seems like the author of these types of articles is just trying to strengthen his own position by degrading the other side.


6%????? More like 60%. And you may be a member!
 
2013-01-19 09:03:56 AM
Moon landings?

MOON LANDINGS?!?!?!?
ic.pics.livejournal.com
0.tqn.com
 
2013-01-19 09:04:29 AM
You know the moon landing wasn't faked because you can look at the moon through a telescope and see Neil Armstrong's bones there. I mean the real Armstrong, not the thing that came back.
 
2013-01-19 09:05:22 AM

Suede head: Or the fact that the Soviet Union was monitoring it too and accepted the American victory in the Space Race.

Uh, the Soviets were first in everything but the race to the moon. They won the space race.


If you say so. I guess that is why they quit exploring beyond low earth orbit for almost 30 years. Or why everybody will be surprised if they ever get anything beyond low earth orbit ever again or actually replace the Soyuz. Winners don't need continue to push the envelope eh?
 
2013-01-19 09:20:46 AM

bbfreak: Suede head: Or the fact that the Soviet Union was monitoring it too and accepted the American victory in the Space Race.

Uh, the Soviets were first in everything but the race to the moon. They won the space race.

If you say so. I guess that is why they quit exploring beyond low earth orbit for almost 30 years. Or why everybody will be surprised if they ever get anything beyond low earth orbit ever again or actually replace the Soyuz. Winners don't need continue to push the envelope eh?


You realize OUR space program is paying them to take our people into space...right?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-20077851.html

Winning, you're doing it Charlie Sheen style.
 
2013-01-19 09:41:24 AM

Hacker_X: Jim_Callahan:
To be fair, the moon landing was a huge effort, so something like a quarter of us have grandparents or parents that were directly involved (my grandfather was a NASA employee, for instance).

I don't think I have any blood relatives that worked on any of that stuff but when I was a kid I did go to church with a guy that was sort of a surrogate grandfather to me. He was on the ground crew for Apollo 11. i wish I could remember his name. I still have a NASA hardhat labeled as being for the ground crew on that mission and a box of spare parts. Yes, I really do have a box of spare rocket parts from NASA. Nothing too terribly exciting, just some cable couplers but for a kid who was obsessed with space those were two of the most awesome gifts I ever could have even possibly received. Close behind those was a military supply drop parachute. I can't count how many neighborhood injuries can directly be attributed to me and other idiot kids having a parachute and no real understanding of physics.

Also, if people think we weren't going to the moon then where do they think those giant rockets with tons and tons of fuel we being fired to? Those weren't just shown on TV/film. There were crowds of people watching those launches, Or at the other end of the problem where do they suppose the capsules full of astronauts were being dropped from?


There were no astro-naughts on board those rockets. And those launches were just routine ICBM test launches with a bunch of space nutter theater thrown in.

Sheeple

I don't really belive any of that.
 
2013-01-19 09:41:44 AM
Why can't these people question things worth questioning?
 
2013-01-19 09:43:58 AM
I have an uncle who I know worked on the mercury and Gemini projects, can't remember if he did any specific work on Apollo but as they all kind of fed in to each other it wouldn't surprise me. When I was fairly young I remember listening to a cassette tape he had of the conversation between the astronauts and mission control leading up to and just after the landing.
 
2013-01-19 09:48:02 AM

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

[haroonriaz.files.wordpress.com image 500x435]

challengeaccepted.jpg


Kubrick directed the fake moon landing and left secret clues sprinkled all around The Shining. Obama is a Kenyan Dictator Antichrist. LBJ killed JFK. Lanza was programmed by the Government to murder children. George HW Bush is a lizard. The Bilderbergs control EVERYTHING.

/ ok I believe the last one. Maybe LBJ too.
 
2013-01-19 10:01:45 AM
The moon landing was faked. Everyone knows that aliens gave us all out technology and a timeline for its release. We had the technology to fake it but the aliens would let us "invent it" until later in....

hold on someone is at the door

As I was saying, its obvious to everyone that the moon landing was real.
 
2013-01-19 10:16:41 AM
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-01-19 10:38:16 AM

Suede head: Or the fact that the Soviet Union was monitoring it too and accepted the American victory in the Space Race.

Uh, the Soviets were first in everything but the race to the moon. They won the space race.


No one will consider you great if you cant win the big one. The moon was the prize, they lost.
 
2013-01-19 10:40:11 AM
As my father says, after working on several of the missions, it might not have gone to the moon, but it sure as heck went somewhere with a whole bunch of noise.
/born at Patrick AFB
//Banana river viewing was great, mom said. Dad said it was better nearer the pad.
 
2013-01-19 10:44:32 AM
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.
 
2013-01-19 10:47:07 AM
I hired a smart woman a couple years ago. A year later I found out she's a Moon Landing Skeptic. Then I found out she's a super Christian. I never asked if she thought Jesus rode a dinosaur. I was afraid to know the answer. We reorged and she wound up working for someone else, and I was kind of relieved. How can I look across the table at review time and take her seriously? She did a good job though, so...
 
2013-01-19 10:50:07 AM

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.


Not if it is correct. And it is.
 
2013-01-19 10:52:22 AM

encyclopediaplushuman: The guy is very entertaining and funny, I like it. If you ever really needed proof, shoot a laser at the retro-reflectors we left on the Moon.


Please do not use this point when trying to debunk the moon hoaxers. The Russians put two laser reflectors on the moon but they never landed men on the moon.

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.
 
2013-01-19 11:15:00 AM

vinniethepoo: I remember that our teachers had TV sets brought into the classrooms so we could watch the moon landing live. My brother was a metallurgist, working at San Dia labs at the time, and was part of the team that analyzed the moon rocks after the mission. He sent me a bunch of 8x10 prints of pictures taken during the mission. Wish I still had those.


Holy hell how long was your school day?
 
2013-01-19 11:17:20 AM

RussianPooper: Suede head: Or the fact that the Soviet Union was monitoring it too and accepted the American victory in the Space Race.

Uh, the Soviets were first in everything but the race to the moon. They won the space race.

No one will consider you great if you cant win the big one. The moon was the prize, they lost.


18-1, biatches.
 
2013-01-19 11:18:07 AM

abadabba: Good video. Near the end the guy actually gives a technical rundown from a film perspective of what would need to be done to fake the moon landings. Which would be monumentally difficult and require specialized equipment the film industry had never seen up to that point. I could just see a Moon landing denier jumping on that and saying "See? you just listed off how to do it and ruined your own argument."


Actually, that part is quite unconvincing. Yes, Hollywood had nothing of the sort because they didn't need it. I strongly suspect such equipment already did exist, though--for spy planes. You don't change film cans in a spy plane. They get in, shoot as much film as they can and get out.

Mythbusters totally busted it, though--slow motion doesn't look like the guys on the moon. If it was faked it wasn't by slow motion and thus the whole discussion of what you can do with slow motion is moot.
 
2013-01-19 11:36:23 AM

Loren: I strongly suspect such equipment already did exist, though--for spy planes. You don't change film cans in a spy plane. They get in, shoot as much film as they can and get out.


I'm pretty sure spy places don't have a need to shoot high speed film to make slow-mo. Quite the opposite as far as frame rate goes, I would imagine.
 
2013-01-19 11:38:58 AM

RoyHobbs22: LBJ killed JFK


Wrong, Oswald was hired by Joe DiMaggio as revenge for his killing of Marylin Monroe, when he discovered he put a hit on the wrong Kennedy he then had RFK wiped out.
 
2013-01-19 11:40:57 AM

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?
 
2013-01-19 11:43:40 AM
The only conspiracy theory I am believing is that Oswald was a patsy for the Mafia.

Moon landing definitely happened
 
2013-01-19 11:45:44 AM

born_yesterday: RussianPooper: Suede head: Or the fact that the Soviet Union was monitoring it too and accepted the American victory in the Space Race.

Uh, the Soviets were first in everything but the race to the moon. They won the space race.

No one will consider you great if you cant win the big one. The moon was the prize, they lost.

18-1, biatches.


Tell it to Tom Brady in 2007
 
2013-01-19 11:46:03 AM

Lady Indica: bbfreak: Suede head: Or the fact that the Soviet Union was monitoring it too and accepted the American victory in the Space Race.

Uh, the Soviets were first in everything but the race to the moon. They won the space race.

If you say so. I guess that is why they quit exploring beyond low earth orbit for almost 30 years. Or why everybody will be surprised if they ever get anything beyond low earth orbit ever again or actually replace the Soyuz. Winners don't need continue to push the envelope eh?

You realize OUR space program is paying them to take our people into space...right?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-20077851.html

Winning, you're doing it Charlie Sheen style.


Hmm...

http://blog.chron.com//sciguy/2011/04/adding-up-the-final-tab-for-the - space-shuttle-program-1-5-billion-per-launch/

..from the article you linked,

The cost of seats aboard the Soyuz capsules - $55.8 million for each astronaut

..I would liken this to saving a buck by letting the existing short distance haulers' handle the loads, while we spend the left over we're saving not using the shuttle on developing the NEXT stage of exploration - longer missions farther out, and allow private industry to develop their systems..

Dragon capsules are viable now... and likely will be cheaper than the Russians sooner rather than later.

WINNING, indeed.
 
2013-01-19 11:47:30 AM

H31N0US: I hired a smart woman a couple years ago. A year later I found out she's a Moon Landing Skeptic. Then I found out she's a super Christian. I never asked if she thought Jesus rode a dinosaur. I was afraid to know the answer. We reorged and she wound up working for someone else, and I was kind of relieved. How can I look across the table at review time and take her seriously? She did a good job though, so...


Well, they do like money.

Or they actually believe it's real. Yikes!
 
2013-01-19 11:48:37 AM

born_yesterday: RussianPooper: Suede head: Or the fact that the Soviet Union was monitoring it too and accepted the American victory in the Space Race.

Uh, the Soviets were first in everything but the race to the moon. They won the space race.

No one will consider you great if you cant win the big one. The moon was the prize, they lost.

18-1, biatches.


Amusing, but it doesn't quite work as an analogy in this case, since they won 3 titles previous to that hilarious outcome. A better comparison would have been Dan Marino.
 
2013-01-19 11:51:29 AM
www.firestormfitcamps.com
LEAVE DAN MARINO ALONE!
 
2013-01-19 11:59:20 AM
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?
 
2013-01-19 12:06:47 PM

Lady Indica: bbfreak: Suede head: Or the fact that the Soviet Union was monitoring it too and accepted the American victory in the Space Race.

Uh, the Soviets were first in everything but the race to the moon. They won the space race.

If you say so. I guess that is why they quit exploring beyond low earth orbit for almost 30 years. Or why everybody will be surprised if they ever get anything beyond low earth orbit ever again or actually replace the Soyuz. Winners don't need continue to push the envelope eh?

You realize OUR space program is paying them to take our people into space...right?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-20077851.html

Winning, you're doing it Charlie Sheen style.


Just to add to what Drakuun has said, that we are paying the Russian's for access to space in the short term is pretty irrelevant. Dragon will hopefully be flying Americans to ISS in 2015 (Soyuz's replacement wont be ready until 2020 assuming it gets off the drawing board). Ambitious as a goal that is I'm not going to hedge any bets against Space X. Especially considering they've already got a space proven spacecraft. Gaps between manned spaceflights are an unfortunate political reality, this isn't the first gap we've had. Its good that we have access to space at all, even if we have to pay the Russians.
 
2013-01-19 12:30:54 PM
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.
 
2013-01-19 12:33:18 PM

Loren: Actually, that part is quite unconvincing. Yes, Hollywood had nothing of the sort because they didn't need it. I strongly suspect such equipment already did exist, though--for spy planes. You don't change film cans in a spy plane. They get in, shoot as much film as they can and get out.


I just found a link that purports to have some info on the cameras. IIRC, in Andromeda Strain the camera IS said to have the ability to shoot at higher speeds than normal. Whether that was for plot, I don't know, but it certainly seemed like something they would build in to allow for greater analysis.

Not that it was used for faking the moon landings.

Even though Kubrick did have special experience with lenses. Perhaps this was how he acquired it, not through still photography.
/poking holes is fun
//unless you're doing it in velvet to make fake stars, I hear.
 
2013-01-19 12:45:26 PM
I do enjoy claiming that the moon landing was a hoax because then I get to see every engineer around me go into apoplexy...
 
2013-01-19 12:49:59 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?


Their true purpose is sinister.
 
2013-01-19 01:10:47 PM

AsprinBurn: You know the moon landing wasn't faked because you can look at the moon through a telescope and see Neil Armstrong's bones there. I mean the real Armstrong, not the thing that came back.


Between this and the soundstage on the moon, this thread is awesome.
 
2013-01-19 01:33:40 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-19 01:47:46 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.


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.
 
2013-01-19 01:51:00 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."

By that logic, WWII never happened. I mean, nuclear bombs, jet planes, cruise missiles, rockets, radar, computers, encryption, electronic proximity fuzes? Yeah, right. Ten years before we were still flying fabric and wood planes and didn't even know the neutron existed.

What's so hard to understand? Putting lots of kerosene into a tube vs being able to manipulate matter into becoming millions and billions of transistors on a tiny wafer, and the math required to compress and manipulate video...

What is it you don't get about those two things being vastly different, and therefore incommensurable?
 
2013-01-19 01:53:11 PM
I inherently and passionately disagree with him just based on the fact he is an over-aged smarmy hipster douche.
 
2013-01-19 02:06:07 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: 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."

By that logic, WWII never happened. I mean, nuclear bombs, jet planes, cruise missiles, rockets, radar, computers, encryption, electronic proximity fuzes? Yeah, right. Ten years before we were still flying fabric and wood planes and didn't even know the neutron existed.

What's so hard to understand? Putting lots of kerosene into a tube vs being able to manipulate matter into becoming millions and billions of transistors on a tiny wafer, and the math required to compress and manipulate video...

What is it you don't get about those two things being vastly different, and therefore incommensurable?


I think the main point isn't so much the technology necessary being so far advanced for 1969... but the real crux (to me) was the whole point of having thousands and thousands of frames, all of which needed to be absolutely free of any artifact that would prove its film.  And that is pretty much impossible.  One stray hair, scratch, etc... and your cover is blown.
 
2013-01-19 02:06:31 PM
Just gonna leave this here for giggles.
 
2013-01-19 02:13:53 PM
We gave the Russians some lunar samples after Apollo 11 came back. Part of the reason was scientific goodwill, part of it was to hand over the proof that we really went there. When the Russians flew a robotic sample return mission a few years later, they compared their samples to ours...

...and didn't say a thing.
 
2013-01-19 02:39:29 PM

I sound fat: I dont think this was faked, but articles that openly mock people who have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion different from their own on a contraversial issue as "idots" always raise a red flag with me.

although, I would characterize six percent of people in america to BE idiots, so maybe. It just always seems like the author of these types of articles is just trying to strengthen his own position by degrading the other side.


You, sir, are stupid.
You see, there is something known as a 'fact' as in something that is true, that actually happened.
When facts are presented to you and YOU get suspicious the problem is not with the facts but with you and your inability to accept them.
 
2013-01-19 03:11:22 PM
If Lance Armstrong never biked to the moon, then where did he get the steroids?
 
2013-01-19 04:19:17 PM

MrEricSir: If Lance Armstrong never biked to the moon, then where did he get the steroids?


Dude, you are confusing the biker with the astronaut, Louis Armstrong.
 
2013-01-19 04:56:54 PM

Harry_Seldon: MrEricSir: If Lance Armstrong never biked to the moon, then where did he get the steroids?

Dude, you are confusing the biker with the astronaut, Louis Armstrong.


no no no..that was Billy Jean Armstrong from Green Day who sang Beat It
 
2013-01-19 04:58:46 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

RIP M-O-O-N
 
2013-01-19 04:59:33 PM

I sound fat: I dont think this was faked, but articles that openly mock people who have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion different from their own on a contraversial issue as "idots" always raise a red flag with me.

although, I would characterize six percent of people in america to BE idiots, so maybe. It just always seems like the author of these types of articles is just trying to strengthen his own position by degrading the other side.


ahh those old "Contraversial Idots"....

/only 6%?
 
2013-01-19 05:02:51 PM
Every child in China is taught that the USA faked the moon landings, some friends we have there, eh?

Shop Wal-Mart!
 
2013-01-19 05:10:24 PM

Apik0r0s: Every child in China is taught that the USA faked the moon landings, some friends we have there, eh?

Shop Wal-Mart!


Why would anyone think the Chinese are our friends?
 
2013-01-19 05:39:01 PM

Haliburton Cummings: Harry_Seldon: MrEricSir: If Lance Armstrong never biked to the moon, then where did he get the steroids?

Dude, you are confusing the biker with the astronaut, Louis Armstrong.

no no no..that was Billy Jean Armstrong from Green Day who sang Beat It


I think that just about covers it, then.
 
2013-01-19 06:34:43 PM
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.
 
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 144 of 144 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report