Moon Landing, Real or Hoax?

[mustrufnuthn]

---

would it really matter if tinuod or dili?

[tagur0]

maau unta naay ubang power na nasud na maka adto sad sa moon aron makita kng naa ba gyuy ebedinsya na ang america maoy unang nakatunob ngadto

[jjhen]

ako nya na adtuon then i-check nako if naa mn jud to landmark gibutang ang amerika didto..hehe

[nonoyantoine]

no it was the space craft..hehehehe

[rcruman]

For me this issue came from the other side.
I mean Russia and USA have a great competition who will be the first in any field (exploring outer space).
One thing for sure doubting "moon landing" came from:

1. the other side
2. from people who wish that their names should be included aside from Armstrong.
3. or they have regrets that they're not included in the team to ride Apollo 11.

Peace!

[rcruman]

*rolls eyes*

Clavius Moon Base - debunking the moon hoax

I used to insert a half-hour lecture on the "moon hoax" conspiracy theories during amateur astronomy teaching sessions we had back in Iligan, but after encountering stubborn people who's only obvious intent was to make you irritated and mad, I just give the link above, so I can use my time for better things.

-RODION

Just a direct answer bro:
do you believe on it or not?
PM me bro because based on your post I see that you know many things about outer space and astronomy.

Peace!

[rodsky]

Just a direct answer bro:
do you believe on it or not?
PM me bro because based on your post I see that you know many things about outer space and astronomy.

Peace!

The reason I quoted the Clavius site is because if you only took time to read it, it will explain using the language of science, why the flag waves, why the shadows are inconsistent, why there are no stars, etc. Like I said, I've been giving lectures on this, and most people who have heard this lecture realized their mistakes in erroneously "absorbing" the style by which people like Bart Sibrel have come up to deliberately mislead people into thinking that they have been "fooled" by NASA.

@mustrufnuthn, of course it matters! Do you know that Bart Sibrel, when he made his video entitled, "A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon", he earned over 80,000 dollars of profit by selling his "evidence" videos? See? This is what is wrong with free enterprise--if you create a need and make people believe they need this thing you created, you will suck in profits--but the bottom line is, you fooled people into thinking what you sold them will fulfill their needs. Now ask yourself, is the act of making people believe that the video you created contains proof, and then you sell this proof (only to find out later that it's a basketfull of bad science and the non-observance of the "Occam's Razor" principle), for a profit, and earning a lot of out of...tell me now...is that wrong or right?

When I was teaching Humanities, students kept asking me what was the difference between an artistic nude and pornography. Well the difference is quite simple--when a classic oil painter, say, Rembrandt, painted a nude figure, his main intent was the preservation of beauty--yes, it earned millions later, but that was not the main purpose, and besides, Rembrandt probably wasn't even around anymore, when his nude paintings started to earn millions. However, with porn, the main intent is to earn millions--profit is the driving force, not art...which is why porn is the kingdom of bad acting.

-RODION

[joan624]

interesting...
well, kad2 reason na pag-pack sa flag mao na-kum-ot and ni-appear like waves kay possible sd kaau
anyway...
the americans have made their mark
everybody has acknowledged them
it's been taught to kids for decades that they were the 1st to land on the moon
congratulate lng ta nila gud

SAD kay wa jud inani ang Pinas.. hehe

[rodsky]

interesting...
well, kad2 reason na pag-pack sa flag mao na-kum-ot and ni-appear like waves kay possible sd kaau
anyway...
the americans have made their mark
everybody has acknowledged them
it's been taught to kids for decades that they were the 1st to land on the moon
congratulate lng ta nila gud

SAD kay wa jud inani ang Pinas.. hehe

When we post links, we do it so as not to be redundant (i.e. dili na ta sige'g post and repost balik-balik). But just to underline the flag-waving issue...


The Conspiracy Advocates' Claim: In a certain photograph you can see the flag waving. That's impossible in a vacuum.

It's always amusing to hear assertions of motion based on the evidence in a still picture.

It would seem that this question needs no rebuttal. But we should clarify that the apparent waving "motion" in the still photos is the wrinkles remaining from its packing. In earth gravity the weight of the fabric itself is often enough let wrinkles "hang" out. But because the flag was made from a very light nylon [Platoff93, note 10] which is even lighter in lunar gravity, the force of the wrinkles wanting to stay wrinkled overcomes the force of gravity for longer.

Here (Fig. 1) is an example of a flag that appears to wave.


It's worth belaboring a trivial point to emphasize that observers will tend to "fill in the gaps" in their perception by applying past experience. The still photo doesn't actually show motion -- no still photo can. But the visible ripples cue our recall of all the other flags we've seen where rippling is caused by wind. And if we are not conscious of this extrapolation, we may strongly convince ourselves that we have indeed "seen" the detail provided by our memories.

This is why great care must be taken in interpreting Apollo photos. We cannot allow our prejudices of the behavior of objects in air and strong gravity to influence our interpretation of behavior on the moon.

The Conspiracy Advocates' Claim: In the video coverage you can see the flag waving. That's impossible in a vacuum.

The simple answer is inertia. The Apollo flag assembly starts with a telescoping tubular pole shoved vertically into the lunar soil. But the resemblance to terrestrial flag arrangements stops there. On earth we attach flags to the pole at the top and bottom corners. And the same would work on the moon, except that the flag would hang limply without ever being visible for what it was.

Fig. 1 - The flag assembly prior to packing. Note the peculiar way the flag was folded. This produced a distinct rumple in the free corner of the flag. (NASA: S69-3874


And so NASA designed a telescoping horizontal support that would hinge to the top of the pole. The flag itself was a commercially available nylon flag. A hem was sewn into the top edge into which the horizontal crossbar could be slid. The astronaut deployed the flag by driving the steel-tipped aluminum pole into the surface, then raising the crossbar on its hinge until it locked into the horizontal position. He could then extend the telescoping segment of the crossbar to support the entire width of the flag.

The flag was held oustretched by the crossbar through the top hem. The inner bottom corner was fastened to the pole. The outer bottom corner is free to move. The astute reader will have recognized this as a type of pendulum.

The astronauts said it was hard to drive the pole into the lunar surface. [Ibid.] Apollo 11 had no means of hammering it in. In later missions they reinforced the top of the pole so that a geology hammer could be used to drive it. During the process the flag pole was twisted in the fashion of a drill bit to bore it into the denser layers. Twisting the pole would cause the outer tip of the crossbar to describe an arc with a radius of about five feet (1.5 meters). The free corner of the flag, suspended from the tip, could whip back and forth.


Sample of the whipping motion...
YouTube - Apollo 17 crew setting up the U.S. flag
Now observe, starting at 1min 29sec, the flag appears to wave, but in actuality, Gene was just trying to "drill" the flag into the regolith to bore it into the denser layers (why? Because in Apollo 11, when the LM ascent stage took off and left the moon, the blast from the engine knocked down the flag--Neil admitted later that he and buzz didn't plant it deep enough). The motion is simply a product of inertia in an airless environment.


In an atmosphere this motion would be impeded ("damped" in engineering terms) by air resistance. But on the moon there is no resistance from air to the pendulum motion of the flimsy fabric.

This process can be duplicated on earth. Slip the buckle of a belt over one end of a yardstick (or meter stick). Hold the other end of the stick and let the rest of the belt hang underneath it. Now move the stick left and right as if the hand holding it were a pole being twisted. Vary the speed. You will notice some complex pendulum motions at the bottom tip of the belt that look uncannily like the movements of the flag in the Apollo video. Why do we use a heavy object like a belt? Because we need something that won't be greatly affected by the air resistance on earth. In a vacuum the nylon fabric will have some of the same properties as the belt.

This is enough for now.

-RODION

[joan624]

well sa flag-waving issue mao mani gisulti sa link (site) nga imo gi-post

Clavius: Photo Analysis - jump salute

excerpt from the link i just posted above:

The flag shouldn't be waving without an atmosphere.

The wrinkles and folds in the flag are from its tight packing during the voyage, not because the air is blowing it. Fig. 2 is the flag from the picture Young took of Charlie Duke's salute a few seconds later. You can see that it's almost identical to the one in the photo above, but photographed from a slightly different angle.

If the flag were waving in the breeze we'd expect it to billow differently in photographs taken seconds or minutes apart. Instead the folds don't change between photographs. The flag is obviously stationary, but wrinkled.



same site... asa man jud tinuod ani