I remember spending like two class lectures proving that we really did land on the moon. My prof. went over all the reason why we "didn't" land there and explained how the accusations were flase. I think the reason behind the starts thing was something to do with the side of the moon we landed on. I didn't do to well in the class so i can't really remember much about it.


kevin

 

Both of these have very simple explanations. 1) The flag is not waving. There is a solid wire along the top edge of the flag. I believe the wire is even curved, giving the flag the appearance of fluttering in the breeze. It is present b/c otherwise the flag would just lie there against the pole, and that wouldn't make for a good photo op, now would it?

2) The presence or absence of an atmosphere has little to do with this one. Go into a city at night and look up at the dark sky. See many stars? No. Now go out into the country and look up. Loads of stars. The atmosphere is the same, so why no stars in the city? I'm sure you know already...too much ambient light! Now look at the pics from the moon. Notice all the sunlight? They're on the bright side of the moon, so of course you won't see any stars. The sky on the moon is black not because it's night-time, but because there's no air/particulates to scatter sunlight and make it blue like on earth in the daytime. Regardless of the absence of an atmospere, there's still enough ambient light during the "day" (which is permanent there) to make the stars too faint to be visible. I'd love to see someone take a picture from the dark side of the moon...I bet the starscape there is spectacular.

Very little of the "evidence" against us having landed on the moon stands up to even marginally good science or critical thinking. The badastonomy.com site someone mentioned earlier does a good job debunking most of it.

 

I wonder if it would be possible to see the remains of previous landings (e.g. the rover) with the Hubble or another large ground based telescope?

 

I've read through some of the theories, and I think some are absurd... The spacecraft had enough fuel to get there and back, so why not try to go? www.badastronomy.com was a great read on the topic.

There weren't any stars because of the intense exposure of the camera, so the shutter speed had to be very high or there needed to be a bunch of filters or else you wouldn't get a clean picture. Look at photos of the moon taken from earth- you usually don't see stars there either, as the intensity of the sun's reflection off of the moon is much higher than the surrounding stars.

With no atmosphere, the only dampening from moving the flag would come from the fabric and gravity, which isn't much. They could touch/move the flag and it'd still ripple minutes later. Again, the website is a good link as it said they had just adjusted the pole prior to that picture, which would leave ripples in the flag.

 

Ravenwerk, if the weather clears up, I'll try and have a look for you with my binocular vision.

 

Of course you can't resolve evidence of a moon landing with a telescope.

 

with all our hi tech telescope technology, can't they just point the hubble at the moon and see the stuff that was let behind?

 

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Raptor
I agree, as does the Flat Earth Society.