Wednesday, March 14, 2012

And some people are just stupid.

See that blank stare? That's what we all think about you
not knowing about the moon landings.
July 20th, 1969. We landed on the Moon. Everyone remembers the event. Even if you're not old enough to have "witnessed" this momentous occasion on television, you still remember it. You've seen the videos, heard the quotes.

What was that? You didn't know we went to the Moon? You haven't seen the photos? You... really? Didn't know?

I have to ask you what the hell you are doing on the internet then? Seriously! Get off the net, get the hell out of here, and go get a life. I know it sounds weird coming from me, but you have to do it. It's for your own good and for the good of the species!

ANYWAY. We landed on the moon.

There are a lot of people that say it was a hoax. That we did not have the technology and that we never did it. I want to talk about this. Honestly, these conspiracy theories bug the hell out of me. One of mankind's greatest achievements and these feeble minded nitwits belittle the men who did it and tarnish the achievement.

Let's take a look at these theories and see what they have to say.

1) The flags wave! If they are on the moon, there would be no air, and as such, the flags wouldn't wave!
Well, let's take a look at that. The flags do wave. On the Apollo 11 flight, they bent the cross bar so the flag is not held taught. The flag, being made of mass has momentum. When they placed the pole, the pole wiggled. I know, I know... You say that's a lame excuse...

Well the Mythbusters tested this. They took a flag to a lab that has a BIG vacuum chamber and put a flag inside, sucked all the air out and then wiggled the flag. Guess what? IT WAVED MORE WITHOUT AIR! Hell. Watch the video.
Hey... That looks JUST LIKE what happened on the moon!

Moving on.

2) In the following picture, you can see BOTH astronauts! The one in the picture and the one reflected in his visor. The one in the visor isn't holding a camera... where's the photographer?
As stated in many places (This is one), The cameras mounted to the front of the space suit. Take a good look at the reflection, the second astronaut's hands are up near his chest. Let's just take a look at this image.
Take a good look at it. 
Look at the mirrored ball. Compare it to the front of the helmet. they are both pretty much spherical, right? So... let's assume the conspiracy theorists are correct. They say there was a third person on site, because reflection astronaut isn't holding a camera. Tell me this, smart guy? Where's the third guy? That photo is taken from straight on. That spherical surface would have reflected the photographer... right? Where is he?

And boom goes the dynamite!

3) There are no stars in the sky in the photos from the moon! HA! FAKE!!!
The dust on the moon (regolith) is VERY reflective. The space suits are white. A LOT of light reflects back. As a photographer, I can tell you that in this situation you are taking exposures at 1/125th or 1/150th of a second. Do some research and you will find that to get star photos you have to take photos that are exposed for 15-30 seconds or even longer. Take a look at the following photo.

Me. New Years Eve.
This photo was taken on New Years Eve, right after the fire works. There is a little smoke, but I could clearly see the stars. My photo was exposed for 1/100th of a second. That is longer than the astronauts took their pictures. Where are the stars? HOLY SHIT! I faked my photo! I wasn't at the riverfront! I must have been on a sound stage! Wait... that's not right. And neither are the theorists on this point.

4) In this photo, the astronaut is seen clearly even though he's in the shadow of the lander!
See?! SEE! You can SEE him!
They argue that this would require multiple lighting sources. I got news for you, buttercup! There ARE multiple light sources on the moon. The Sun. The Sun reflecting off the regolith. The Sun reflecting off the Earth.  I found a photo that shows some of the same properties, right here on earth, with one light source.
You can see detail here in the shadows. 
I actually dug up one of the photos I have taken that has a lot of the same image qualities. It was taken with one light source, there's deep shadow and a lot of shadow that you can see detail in.
I know it's not astronauts, but you can see it. 
As you can see, similar lighting and shadows don't require a separate light source. Any questions?

5) The footprint of Buzz Aldrin is too clear. Loose, dry powder won't print like that! It could only have been done in something like wet sand! (photo below)
WET SAND! On the moon! A waterless world! Bullshit!
Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy said regolith, is "like a finely ground powder. When you look at it under a microscope, it almost looks like volcanic ash. So when you step on it, it can compress very easily into the shape of a boot." And those shapes could stay pristine for a long while thanks to the airless vacuum on the moon.

Wait... what was that? He's just spouting the rhetoric of the NASA supporter?

Well, the Mythbusters did this one too.

Soooo... They did it without wet sand. 'Nuff said.

6) We can't see the stuff left on the moon! With the Hubble, we should be able to see it. HA! No left-overs, no moon landing!
This is just silly. No terrestrial telescope has the resolution to spot something that small. The smallest object the Hubble can see on the moon is the size of a house. Ironically enough, we have two forms of direct, observable proof that we put stuff there.

In 1969, the Apollo 11 astronauts left a reflector on the moon. It's part of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. Earthbound lasers are fired at the reflector and it bounces back. By calculating the time for the light to go and return, we measure the distance to the moon. You can do it at home with the right equipment.

Now, there is some more compelling and recent proof.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has returned photos of ALL of the landing sites. (Whole article and all photos can be seen on this web page. Here is my favorite photo from it. You can see the descent module, their path and a suite of instruments. 
Oh... and the Mythbusters used the retroreflector to get a return.
HOLY SHIT! We were there?!

7) What are those lights? They got studio lights in the shots!
This is silly. This is what we call a lens flare. A lens flare is unwanted, excessive light in a photograph due to internal reflections and scattering of light caused by a camera lens with non-uniform optical characteristics.

Hey... Take a good look at that photo... Now look at this one.
Lens flares MOFO!
Take a good look at both the photos... look right about the roof in that second one... notice the EXACT SAME SHAPE that the conspiracy theorists claim to be lights. Whoops... guess NASA didn't mess that photo up... did they?

The rest of them, really, the Mythbusters handled...

Non parallel shadows!

The walk was just them on wires and slowed down the footage! 

There are a couple other claims... but they don't deserve attention.

I will cite one thing that no one has ever been able to state is faked is the dust coming up off the wheels of the lunar rover. It comes up and back down in a perfect mathematical parabola. Do it. Showme how they faked that on earth.

"They built a building and made the whole thing a vacuum!"

Bullshit. We can't do that NOW, let alone in 1969. Even if we could... it would have been CHEAPER TO GO TO THE MOON!

Let's say they did just that. How do you account for the fact that the parabola's math doesn't match Earth gravity, but 1/6th of a g? (That's what it is on the Moon.)

What's that? Antigravity?


That's it... We went to the Moon. Deal with it. Stop spouting your wacky theories about the Moon and move on to a different topic. I mean... there's UFOs, ancient aliens, ultra dimensional beings, Monsanto's intentional destruction of humanity... pick one that we can't prove with 100% certainty!

Images in this issue (when not taken by me) SHAMELESSLY stolen from the following sources:

No comments:

Post a Comment