What is Digg?480 Comments
- Deathfrogg, on 07/03/2009, -20/+427A man who was once a very close and dear freind when we were kids, firmly believes this crap. His take is that it is impossible for humans to build rockets that big, (because objects that large are far too heavy to escape Earths gravity), that there is far too much radiation in space for humans to survive, and his most common argument is that there are no stars in the pictures.
When he is confronted with the counter arguements, he always just dismisses them out of hand by accusing the arguer of: believing the "propaganda" and is too stupid to see whats right there in front of his eyes, or is somehow "in on the conspiracy". Having grown up as a NASA brat in the late 60's and early 70's, this sort of attitude becomes quite exausting.
The world is full of deliberately ignorant people. They would rather believe in the idea of a massively elaborate hoax perpetrated by the US government, than a simpler explanation of what actually happened. It is easier to believe a bizzarre and massively complex fabrication with zero evidence. It always seems to come out of the fundimentalist religious mindset. Such people are already predisposed to disbelieve physical evidence in favor of more ethereal concepts with no foundation in reality.
Sigh. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -4/+269Yeah, well just don't tell Buzz Aldrin you don't think he went to the Moon - he'll kick your ass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU
"One Punch! One Punch!" - jggr, on 07/03/2009, -19/+210Sigh.... While I'm not the smartest man in the world, these arguments are quite weak.
Everyone knows the moon is made of cheese.... Where's the cheese?? - fadeout, on 07/03/2009, -10/+187Moon landing conspiracy theorists are almost as dumb as websites that make you click 10 times to see their list.
- Joker99352, on 07/04/2009, -7/+154Mythbusters took every major argument into account and busted every single one of them. There is no doubt that the landing was 100% authentic.
- ozydingo, on 07/03/2009, -5/+91What would it prove, though? Skeptics would just say the photos are fake; it's not like it's tough to fake photos like that anyway. So why bother with a futile attempt to provide proof when they have other arguably much more important things to spend their time & resources doing?
- Semprini, on 07/04/2009, -8/+87Of all the stupid Conspiracy Theorists, the Moon Hoaxers are the dumbest, and that is saying something.
Even when LRO images all the sites, the nuts will still have a way to justify their madness.
Xenu Wept. - ksgant, on 07/04/2009, -0/+79Buzz is awesome!
Plus he walked on the ***** moon! - manmademark, on 07/04/2009, -7/+85Mythbusters did a much better job of this... This website was completely useless. And 10 pages? ***** off. I still have a splinter in my index finger.
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8
2 & 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtWMz51eL0Y
4) I dont remember the mythbusters going over this one... Good for you website.
5) ...waste of time.
6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-W9CO1k7UY
7) couldn't find a video
8) this really has nothing to do with a moon hoax.. more of a.. space hoax?
9) never seen a moon hoaxer pull this one
10) I would smack someone who used this as a claim that we never landed on the moon. - BREZZZ, on 07/04/2009, -15/+93This article is crap [I'm not a conspiracy theory guy]
"...the lack of atmosphere and hence air resistance mean the flag takes a long time to settle"
No, it would still fall straight down, even faster in a vacuum. The flag was propped up by a rod.
"The galaxies, supernovae and nebulae it has revealed all have one thing in common: they are very, very big.The largest piece of man-made rubbish on the moon is what remains of the Eagle lander, about 10m across."
I get the point, but it would probably be better stated by comparing APPARENT size, which still make it too small to be seen by hubble, but not light-years off.
And they leave out the biggest piece of evidence, the friggen retroreflector, the one thing we they left that we can still detect. - FrozenPie, on 07/04/2009, -11/+85MOON LANDING WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!11!
- K4Lic0, on 07/04/2009, -3/+74Don't any of you watch Mythbusters?
- cavar, on 07/04/2009, -0/+65This is fake - Buzz never really punched him, the shadows are all wrong!
- RogerStrong, on 07/04/2009, -1/+65Those have been not just explained, but demonstrated several times over. It's one light source - the sun. But the surface isn't flat, so the shadows *appear* to go in a different direction.
Take the first photo on the page you link to. Here's the Mythbusters duplicating the very same shot with one light source and getting the same results.
http://www.scienceontv.com/2008/12/11/mythbusters- ... - anonymousmedic, on 07/04/2009, -1/+64Buzz Aldrin was my hero growing up. Him punching out that loony only made me feel a swell of pride to have been a Nasa fanboy.
- Danby123, on 07/04/2009, -2/+56Of course the moon landing are fake. The moon is simply a projection made by the Illuminati to brainwash us with Thetans while we sleep. Pshhh... sheeple...
- Danby123, on 07/04/2009, -5/+51Hit the nail on the head with that last paragraph, well done. Occam's razor FTW.
- inactive, on 07/04/2009, -2/+45Because it just went into orbit within the last few days, a polar orbit, and will not be over any apollo landing sites for a few days.
Jesus Christ. When we finally do get the pictures (of about 1m resolution), with the descent stage, rovers, experiments and fallen-over flag, you're still going to say that the resolution isn't enough. - euro22, on 07/04/2009, -2/+44"you're a coward and a liar and.. UMPH"
- bthree78, on 07/04/2009, -7/+49Mythbusters already took care of this. Unless Adam and Jamie are part of the conspiracy. Oh no. . .
- S1ngular1ty1, on 07/04/2009, -1/+39JohFlux was right,
@Legoman513 and BREZZZ,
You don't understand the article. They were saying a WAVING flag will wave longer on the moon because there is no air resistance to dampen out its motion. So the flag, held up by the rod, when touched or moved will wave and stay waving for a while because there is no air to get in its way and slow it down.
Clear now?
And I agree about the laser reflector. That is the most damning evidence against the conspiracy claims. How does a frickin laser bounce back from the moon for us to observe if there wasn't a man made reflector on the moon placed there by our astronauts?
Ponder that you nut jobs. - picoarthur, on 07/04/2009, -4/+40People that are skeptics of the Moon landings are a slap in the face to an entire generation of engineers and astronauts. These guys worked millions of hours and dedicated their lives to beat the Soviets to the Moon.
- DouglasQ, on 07/04/2009, -4/+38Their boots were too heavy.
- gerrylazlo, on 07/04/2009, -2/+33"It's not all nutcases."
Yeah, don't forget the morons! - anonymousmedic, on 07/04/2009, -0/+30Um no. It can't. The lenses and sensors on the hubble are designed to see things lightyears away. Millions of lightyears away. They aren't designed to focus on near celestial objects, and produce poor resolution pictures. The smallest area that the hubble could zoom in on the moon is nearly 250 miles in size. The base of the lunar lander is about 10 meters in length. Do the math.
- theflash454, on 07/04/2009, -7/+36actually most people with the "fundimentalist religious mindset" prefer more simple explanations like god created everything rather than evolution, which is more complex. most religious people believe what they are told and dont worry about conspiracies, none of them think that 911 was an inside job. people on digg need to stop turning every article into a shot against religion.
- inactive, on 07/04/2009, -0/+29Trying to see the moon landing site with the Hubble Telescope is like trying to take pictures of bacteria with your digital camera.
- JohnFlux, on 07/04/2009, -0/+28> "...the lack of atmosphere and hence air resistance mean the flag takes a long time to settle"
>No, it would still fall straight down, even faster in a vacuum. The flag was propped up by a rod.
You are misunderstanding. A waving flag will remain waving for a long time. It won't settle down and become still for a long time. - inactive, on 07/04/2009, -0/+25http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Sibrel#Dealings_ ...
Man that guy is a douchebag. - Tanktunker, on 07/04/2009, -3/+27The moon doesn't really exist.
- fortheworld, on 07/04/2009, -4/+28So if they never landed on the moon - NASA created the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs, built all this equipment, made all this footage of command modules landing in the ocean and still have most of the modules on display in various museums across the US? They told hundreds of thousands of people involved over at least 15 years a continuing story that resulted in a moon landing? Geez, i've gotta give NASA kudos for that one!
But wait - what about all these probes we're sending out? The missions to Mercury, Venus, Mars and beyond. They must be faked too. There's no way we could get pictures of other planets, because we can't even get to the moon! Voyager and Pioneer never made it to the end of the solar system. That's just a lie. - BREZZZ, on 07/04/2009, -4/+28Gov did it. JFK told them to "Pull it" [off]
- Semprini, on 07/04/2009, -3/+25Uh, the LRO just settled into a testing orbit, they are starting to activate the instruments. Real picture taking begins next month when LRO settles into a 31km orbit. But, evidently that isn't fast enough for the nutters.
What will it take to convince the insane? - insky60, on 07/04/2009, -14/+35Every conspiracy theorist I've met is always anti-religion...The fact is the nutjobs come from both sides. If you think only religous people beleive in this kind of stuff there's one big huge elephant of a conspiracy theory in the room...it happened almost 8 years ago.
- Virgule, on 07/04/2009, -1/+22What they did is reproduce with great accuracy most of the alleged moon landing footage in studios, on Earth, to prove that they did indeed landed there.
Well, duh... That Mythbusters episode is delicious, oh so delicious, irony. - juhache, on 07/04/2009, -0/+20@petersonca
Yeah, because all they do is turn up, film the tv show then go home.
They spend months researching and doing many many experiments, that they don't put on tv because for one, each episode would be 4 weeks long and also, because the brain dead population aren't interested in experimentation, they just wanna see ***** blow up. - S1ngular1ty1, on 07/04/2009, -0/+20One of their experiments showed they couldn't fully reproduce the footage of astronauts on the moon in a studio. They couldn't get the psychics to work right. Gee, I wonder why that would be the case?
They didn't reproduce everything that happened. They analyzed and debunked the false claims. Seems you don't quite grasp these concepts. Probably why you are a conspiracy nutter to begin with. Since you don't know how it works it must be a conspiracy. It would be terrible if you were just uninformed, wouldn't it? - suntzusputnik, on 07/04/2009, -3/+23that's no moon...
- gdavidp, on 07/04/2009, -1/+20Ask your stupid friend to go to a very well lit baseball field this summer during a pitch black cloud free sky evening (after 10pm) with a digital SLR camera and a wide angle lens and take pictures of the players on the field with a 1/3 of the sky visible in the picture frame...
Then get him to look at the pictures of the sky on a computer... Good luck seeing stars. The lack of stars is due to the dynamic range of cameras, even today. You have to specifically expose for the sky, which would in turn washout the playing field, in order to see stars under similar conditions taken on the Moon. Alternatively, build and HDR photograph using multiple exposures and EV compensations to grab both parts of the scenery. - Mujokan, on 07/04/2009, -0/+19Look at the higher resolution one. You can't see the shadow because there is a little ridge hiding it. You can't see where the pole hits the ground.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a11_h_40_5 ...
Even higher though ftp:
ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/miscellaneous/planetary/apollo/as11_40_5875.jpg - ophello, on 07/04/2009, -3/+22Because scientists don't spend millions of dollars trying to dispel the crackpot moron's ill-conceived conspiracy theories.
- LandingApollo, on 07/04/2009, -0/+19I've signed up to here just to reply to this. I studied Astrophysics and I own www.landingapollo.com. It would be like trying to read a book that was 30 miles away with some binoculars! It can be shown that it can't be seen with a little maths:
Let's say the largest object on the Moon was 5 metres in diameter, I picked 5 because it's a nice round number! The distance to the Moon is roughly 384,000 kilometres.
Angular Size = 5 / 384,000,000 = 13 billionths of a Radian
To convert from from Radians to degrees:
In degrees = (1.3 x 10-8) x 180 / Pi = 750 billionths of a degree across
Ok, so we've obtained in degrees the area that we would have to look at to be able to see that particular object, now I will tie this into hubble.
Astronomers use 'arcseconds' instead of degrees. There are 3600 arc seconds in a degree. If we do the maths 750 billionths of a degree x 3600 we get around 0.0026 arc seconds, but because we approximated with the distance I'll round this upto 0.003 arcseconds.
So, I hear you ask? What can hubble see? Our eye can see 60 arcseconds, The best telescope on the ground can see objects 0.5 arcseconds in size, hubble can see more clearly, upto 0.05 arcseconds in size. That makes the Moon landing equipment 18 times smaller than what hubble can see. Even if it was 18 times bigger it would resolve to one pixel, to put that in perspective you probably have about 800 thousand pixels on your monitor right now!
Now then, that isn't the only problem! The Moon is moving across the sky at 0.5 arcseconds due to it's orbit around earth, you can probably see the problem all ready! It would be like trying to take a sharp picture of a train whizzing by!
It's amazing what a bit of knowledge in an area can lead to. I suggest you go and research and learn before making assumptions and posting blindly. - wipis, on 07/04/2009, -6/+25You would thing that the greatest minds in the world would be harder to beat then a hand full of part time theorist pouring over photos. What I mean is, even if they were fake and it was done in a studio the engineers, physicist and photographers with a massive budget from the US government could create photo's so real the actors would have believed it. I haven't done a lot of research on the subject but as far as I know the Russians never tried to prove it was a fake landing and as our only competitor at the time they would have gained to prove that. And they had their own photographers, engineers and physicist and massive government budget. Why didn't they fake it or use their resources to disprove our landing?
In sum a rocket scientist should be able to out smart a guy in his basement. . - UncleCrapper, on 07/04/2009, -1/+20"...ummm wtf is a Sceptic ? Like Sceptic Tank - as in where you ***** goes a la' SEWER..."
Sceptic and skeptic are both correct spellings, although skeptic is more common. - gfish3000, on 07/04/2009, -4/+22"how come no human being has traveled more than 850 miles from Earth since then?"
Because we a) don't have the money for it, b) don't want to allocate the money for it and c) made technology for LEO rather than long range travel. And those campaign donors on Wall Street certainly get first priority over anything that NASA will ever do.
So everything you said is pretty much utter ignorant crap backed up by no sources, total lack of reasoning and failures on logic so massive, it's as if you deliberately turned off your prefrontal cortex before spouting the garbage you did... - IphtashuFitz, on 07/04/2009, -0/+17Cheese, Gromit!
- thegrantman, on 07/04/2009, -8/+25Billy Mays was a conspiracy theorist?
- Mujokan, on 07/04/2009, -2/+19NASA confirmed there will be pictures of the site. Cue "Oh but you can tell by the pixels"
- twinklyJesus, on 07/04/2009, -1/+17You do have to make sure the person you are calling a coward ACTUALLY is a coward, or the magic doesn't work.
- Semprini, on 07/04/2009, -0/+16Actually, the HST can't. It cannot resolve down to that point. You don't understand telescopes, you get all fixated on "power". Scopes are built for larger aperture, and lower "power" to bring in more light.
HST was not designed to EVER look at the moon, it could not resolve down to a point where you could see the landers and even if you did, it would ruin it, due to the amount of light.
I have a ten inch Meade LX200 telescope, pretty nice, I can see stuff you can't even believe. But, if I turn it to the moon, I have to put some pretty heavy filters on it, because of the brightness, it hurts my eyes to even look, and I can't get good photos as well. -
Show 51 - 100 of 493 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 