Was the 1969 Moon Landing a hoax?

[Mathew]

Hey,
Just a little something we were discussing in Critical Thinking today.. whether the 1969 Moon Landing was a hoax or not.

What's your view, and why? :)

[Conservative,]

Don't know - why? Because I wasn't there.

No one can say for sure but I think personally it is possible - whether or not they did it is a different thing. I have seen some pretty convincing conspiracy theories but as I said, I wasn't there so I don't have all the sense of what happened before/after ect.

[-Danube-]

I think it was real tbh. There was a race to the moon between the US and other countries like Russia, and Russia wouldn't just back down if they thought the whole thing was a hoax. If there was any doubt that the USA did not land the first man on the moon then Russia would have challenged this, proved it to be a hoax and then continued the race to the moon.

Besides today people use telescopes to look at the moon and i'm sure they can view the 1969 landing site and that flag, machinery and footprints are still there to this date.

I just think it was a big conspiracy, everything that ever happens seems to get some kind of conspiracy around it.

[Conservative,]

I think it was real tbh. There was a race to the moon between the US and other countries like Russia, and Russia wouldn't just back down if they thought the whole thing was a hoax. If there was any doubt that the USA did not land the first man on the moon then Russia would have challenged this, proved it to be a hoax and then continued the race to the moon.

Besides today people use telescopes to look at the moon and i'm sure they can view the 1969 landing site and that flag, machinery and footprints are still there to this date.

I just think it was a big conspiracy, everything that ever happens seems to get some kind of conspiracy around it.

This is true. It was part of the Cold War.

The only thing that puts me in doubt is the fact that the flag seemed to flutter in "the wind" but obviously the moon has no wind. But that could be due to something else, and also at some points you can see a reflection in the astronauts visors...

[cocaine]

This is true. It was part of the Cold War.

The only thing that puts me in doubt is the fact that the flag seemed to flutter in "the wind" but obviously the moon has no wind. But that could be due to something else, and also at some points you can see a reflection in the astronauts visors...

because theres no gravity or friction in space it is possible that once you flick the flag or move it in any way that it will keep moving forever.

[Conservative,]

because theres no gravity or friction in space it is possible that once you flick the flag or move it in any way that it will keep moving forever.

That's also true. LOL.

[jackass]

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Basically every bit of evidence towards it being a hoax.

I for one, believe that the moon landings were real, but I do find the subject quite interesting.

[Mathew]

This is true. It was part of the Cold War.

The only thing that puts me in doubt is the fact that the flag seemed to flutter in "the wind" but obviously the moon has no wind. But that could be due to something else, and also at some points you can see a reflection in the astronauts visors...
This is what we were discussing. There were some VERY high quality photographs taken on the moon with cameras embedded in their space suit, yet the video feed, was of terrible quality, black and white.. jerky and fuzzy, etc. How did they take such good quality photographs within their spacesuits (photos which would only be possible by changing lenses, films.. which would be rather tedious in a bulky suit) when a simple, still video couldn't pick anything up?

I've not watched any video closely enough to see it "flutter", but I'm aware that a wire frame was put around the flag to hold it upright.. which seems fair enough to me.

Personally, I think the Moon Landing happened.. however I do admit there is a substantial amount of evidence to doubt it.

[Samantha]

We did a Neil Armstrong text in English Language, and another thing, on like the 1st lesson we had in English this girl said she had met an astronaut. She said although the moon landings 'may' be real, most of the pictures are fake.
Straight from the horses mouse.

I feel it could be real. But it also might not be.

[Jordy]

I think it was real tbh. There was a race to the moon between the US and other countries like Russia, and Russia wouldn't just back down if they thought the whole thing was a hoax. If there was any doubt that the USA did not land the first man on the moon then Russia would have challenged this, proved it to be a hoax and then continued the race to the moon.

Besides today people use telescopes to look at the moon and i'm sure they can view the 1969 landing site and that flag, machinery and footprints are still there to this date.

I just think it was a big conspiracy, everything that ever happens seems to get some kind of conspiracy around it.Totally agree here and that's always been my thoughts on the matter. You can actually connect to some of the equipment they put on the moon which is as gooder proof as any for me;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

They do it in a recent Big Bang Theory episode, if you fire lasers at a certain point of the moon (Where they placed the reflectors) they'll beam back to Earth.

[Oleh]

Why dont they just fly to the moon and livestream it?

[SirTezza]

If you take a flag, and use the flag pole to twist it and push it down into the surface, here on earth, the flag would ripple and shake. It stops pretty quickly once you finish touching it because of Newtons Laws and gravity.

So, when they were on the moon, considering the gravity is only 1/6 of what it is here, the same thing happened. They were pushing the pole into the ground, shaking it around, so of course the flag ripples and moves the exact same way. The difference is that on the moon, there is less gravity and less other forces working on it, therefore the flag continues to ripple for a time after they stop touching it.

This is why you see it moving. It is not wind. It is purely the fact that the forces on the moon are lower, therefore it takes the flag longer to settle.

Why when the astronauts jump in the air does it take them so long to come back down compared to on earth? Less gravity, less forces acting on the object.

[karter]

I think it was real. Seeing that there was a Cold War going on between Russia and USA.
In such a situation , No country can tolerate an insult if such a thing is found out

[SirTezza]

Why dont they just fly to the moon and livestream it?

NASA's ambitions are beyond the moon now. They have firmly set their sights on a Mars program, and exploring other planets. Just recently they found oxygen ions on Rhea, one of Saturn's moons. A while back now they also found oxygen rich atmospheres on 2 of Jupiter's moons. This is the sort of thing NASA are concentrating on at this point.

I do wish however that we were going to the moon again. Mostly because I wasn't born until '88 so I didn't get to see the first landing, and I want to be a part of it. But also because I think we should begin building on the moons surface. Sadly that won't be happening for many, many years now!

[Stephen!]

It was real. Watch the episode of Mythbusters and it explains everything.

[SirTezza]

I don't see why it is so hard for people to accept LOL.

Without drag, gravity or any other force working on the flag, the momentum will make the flag move. Since it is in a vacuum it will take longer to stop waving. That gives the illusion of wind.

The landings happened, and I always have and always will believe that.

[karter]

Explaining the flag thing : It's physics and the flag is supposed to flap.

[ChickenFaces]

The government spending heaps of money for a pointless hoax?

Eh. It's happened before. I wouldn't be suprised if it was a hoax but, no one knows for sure I guess except the people involved.

[karter]

The USA wouldn't have been much confident and proud if it was hoax.
Maybe it was all made up because the countries couldn't believe such a thing could happen.

[iBlueBox]

My Physics teacher got annoyed when i asked him this question in like year 8,

I believe it wasn't a hoax.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't see why it is so hard for people to accept LOL.

Without drag, gravity or any other force working on the flag, the momentum will make the flag move. Since it is in a vacuum it will take longer to stop waving. That gives the illusion of wind.

The landings happened, and I always have and always will believe that.

Because government lies all the time, we did afterall only recently invade another country based on a lie.

[Inseriousity.]

There was an episode of QI I think with a little mention of this halfway through :)

I don't think it was faked but I think the real question is do I really care?

[SirTezza]

Because government lies all the time, we did afterall only recently invade another country based on a lie.

Yeh, the government lies. But pulling off something as extravagant as a moon landing hoax is pretty difficult, especially considering what else was going on at the time. But everything seen in the Apollo moon landing videos has been questioned with conspiracy and all of those conspiracies have been answered with 100% validity. At this point it seems it's purely up to each individual to how they interpret the events of the landing, because as far as the experts are concerned they have already answered it.

My belief? .... They went to the moon :D

[Gibs960]

My mum and dad watched it on tv and they said it would of been almost impossible to fake it. And I believe that it was real due to the massive effect it has had on space travel today.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well i'm indifferent on the topic before I reply, but i'm just stating - don't believe everything government tells you, infact it is wise not to believe a word government says unless you can prove it from reliable sources/use your own thought.


Yeh, the government lies. But pulling off something as extravagant as a moon landing hoax is pretty difficult, especially considering what else was going on at the time. But everything seen in the Apollo moon landing videos has been questioned with conspiracy and all of those conspiracies have been answered with 100% validity. At this point it seems it's purely up to each individual to how they interpret the events of the landing, because as far as the experts are concerned they have already answered it.

My belief? .... They went to the moon :D

Well the CIA was considering blowing up civilian targets (and consquently civilians themselves) back in the 1960s in order to justify an invasion of Cuba and thats not to mention the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which never happened) and Saddam Hussein his WMDs (which didn't exist).

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." - Adolf Hitler

[Conservative,]

Well i'm indifferent on the topic before I reply, but i'm just stating - don't believe everything government tells you, infact it is wise not to believe a word government says unless you can prove it from reliable sources/use your own thought.



Well the CIA was considering blowing up civilian targets (and consquently civilians themselves) back in the 1960s in order to justify an invasion of Cuba and thats not to mention the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which never happened) and Saddam Hussein his WMDs (which didn't exist).

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." - Adolf Hitler


They were going to invade Cuba because of the Nuclear Weapons threat that was there...they had every right to defend themselves but they chose the better option of blockading it and in the end the weapons were taken out.

The WMDs may or may not have existed, we don't know, they were never found...doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Wig44.]

They were going to invade Cuba because of the Nuclear Weapons threat that was there...they had every right to defend themselves but they chose the better option of blockading it and in the end the weapons were taken out.

The WMDs may or may not have existed, we don't know, they were never found...doesn't mean they don't exist.

It seems obvious to me that there were no nuclear weapons in Cuba. And I hope you aren't inferring that they had the right to kill civilians to justify a war. The same kind of hype seems to happen whenever America wants to go to war. Like how the CIA told JFK (who told the people, believing it himself) that there were possibly 2000 nuclear warheads in Russia's arsenal when they actually only had 2.

[Conservative,]

It seems obvious to me that there were no nuclear weapons in Cuba. And I hope you aren't inferring that they had the right to kill civilians to justify a war. The same kind of hype seems to happen whenever America wants to go to war. Like how the CIA told JFK (who told the people, believing it himself) that there were possibly 2000 nuclear warheads in Russia's arsenal when they actually only had 2.
No they did not have the right to kill innocent people but they had the right to defend themselves. There is clear evidence showing there were nuclear weapons on Cuba and that Russia were prepared to use them. I'm taking history GCSE and we're studying the Cold War...I think I would know?

[-:Undertaker:-]

They were going to invade Cuba because of the Nuclear Weapons threat that was there...they had every right to defend themselves but they chose the better option of blockading it and in the end the weapons were taken out.

The WMDs may or may not have existed, we don't know, they were never found...doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'm well aware of the Cuban missile crisis and i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about Operation Northwood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods) which aimed to get the public behind an invasion of Cuba by staging attacks on U.S. cities/soil and blaming it on Cuba, when infact it was the CIA.

The WMD issue, i'm sorry but there was no evidence that Iraq has WMD and its just as fruitless a claim as I could accuse you right now of harbouring terrorists and enemies of the state - the result (compared to the invasion of Iraq) would be a Police raid on your house, and if no terrorists were found I could just then say "well that doesn't prove their were never any terrorists there in the first place" by which time your house is destroyed.

The Bush administration was planning to do something about Iraq well before 9/11 or even before they gained office, infact if you watch Farenheit 9/11 you will see the way in which Rumsfeld came in to government agencies the day after 9/11 and said "Saddam, Iraq - get back to me" and when senior officals said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Rumsfeld said that there were not good targets in Afghanistan, lets bomb Iraq instead. Farenheit 9/11 is watchable on Youtube, pretty good quality and the entire thing is uploaded, here's the start and i'd advise a viewing of the entire documentary to anybody; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu40ZR7i_9M

I've mentioned U.S. government examples of deception of the public (lies in frank terms), but I could also go on about the devious 'European project' in its aim to create a European Superstate and then there's the global warming fiaso + numerous others such as swine flu.

[dbgtz]

No they did not have the right to kill innocent people but they had the right to defend themselves. There is clear evidence showing there were nuclear weapons on Cuba and that Russia were prepared to use them. I'm taking history GCSE and we're studying the Cold War...I think I would know?

Just because it's written down, it doesn't mean it's the truth. I bet half the stuff wiki leaks had just leaked counters some of the stuff we thought were happening.

[Stephen!]

I thought this debate was about the moon landings?

[Conservative,]

Just because it's written down, it doesn't mean it's the truth. I bet half the stuff wiki leaks had just leaked counters some of the stuff we thought were happening.

But there are photos from the U2 spy planes which show the war heads? lol.

But meh, the US government has lied, but I really doubt they'd lie about such a huge thing and especially during that time, if they had then Russia would've proved it false. It was about who was most advanced, Russia would've done everything to make sure that they looked more powerful so if there was any doubt about the landings they would've capitalized on it.

[Phil]

It was a part of the Cold War? Was it Russia they were racing? Lets say this was a hoax, do you not think the Russians would go "Here lads they never got to the moon"

[JerseySafety]

I don't think it was a hoax. I think it was completely legit.

Thing have to be done for a first time like when Sir Edmund Hillary & that other tenzing dude climbed Mt Everest for the first time..

[Neversoft]

This thread is a hoax.

[Wig44.]

I'm well aware of the Cuban missile crisis and i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about Operation Northwood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods) which aimed to get the public behind an invasion of Cuba by staging attacks on U.S. cities/soil and blaming it on Cuba, when infact it was the CIA.

The WMD issue, i'm sorry but there was no evidence that Iraq has WMD and its just as fruitless a claim as I could accuse you right now of harbouring terrorists and enemies of the state - the result (compared to the invasion of Iraq) would be a Police raid on your house, and if no terrorists were found I could just then say "well that doesn't prove their were never any terrorists there in the first place" by which time your house is destroyed.

The Bush administration was planning to do something about Iraq well before 9/11 or even before they gained office, infact if you watch Farenheit 9/11 you will see the way in which Rumsfeld came in to government agencies the day after 9/11 and said "Saddam, Iraq - get back to me" and when senior officals said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Rumsfeld said that there were not good targets in Afghanistan, lets bomb Iraq instead. Farenheit 9/11 is watchable on Youtube, pretty good quality and the entire thing is uploaded, here's the start and i'd advise a viewing of the entire documentary to anybody; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu40ZR7i_9M

I've mentioned U.S. government examples of deception of the public (lies in frank terms), but I could also go on about the devious 'European project' in its aim to create a European Superstate and then there's the global warming fiaso + numerous others such as swine flu.

You should definitely watch both Zeitgeist movies. Both fantastic. Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist: Addendum.

[Recursion]

You're actually all wrong about the flag, apparently when the flag pole was made they didn't account for the expanding and contracting of the metals during take off and landing and so the pole was damaged in transit, so when they tried to put the flag up, the pole didn't deploy properly and the flag wasn't straightened out, giving the "waving" image we see in pictures.

But yes, I do believe it was real, there's no real reason for anyone to lie.

[N!ck]

I want to believe it's real and have seen the mythbusters episode apparantly busting this myth.

But there's absolutely no way they could have survived the radiation. The shielding they supposedly had would be nowhere near thick enough to properly protect them. It would also have destroyed any the camera film of any pictures taken.

[SirTezza]

I want to believe it's real and have seen the mythbusters episode apparantly busting this myth.

But there's absolutely no way they could have survived the radiation. The shielding they supposedly had would be nowhere near thick enough to properly protect them. It would also have destroyed any the camera film of any pictures taken.

Please know what you are talking about when entering into a debate topic. Radiation would have come from the Van Allen belt, which they passed through in under 2 hours, meaning they did not get a serious hit of radiation. Also, plastic, metal and water are all shields to the radiation, and those things were abundant on the spacecraft. The trajectory they flew on also targeted areas of lesser radiation, meaning they would have hit even less.

The Van Allen belt is simply energetic charged particles that have become trapped by the earth's magnetic field. It isn't a danger if you pass through it quickly enough. Dr James Van Allen has even said that the belt itself would cause no hindrance to manned spaceflight.

[N!ck]

Please know what you are talking about when entering into a debate topic. Radiation would have come from the Van Allen belt, which they passed through in under 2 hours, meaning they did not get a serious hit of radiation. Also, plastic, metal and water are all shields to the radiation, and those things were abundant on the spacecraft. The trajectory they flew on also targeted areas of lesser radiation, meaning they would have hit even less.

The Van Allen belt is simply energetic charged particles that have become trapped by the earth's magnetic field. It isn't a danger if you pass through it quickly enough. Dr James Van Allen has even said that the belt itself would cause no hindrance to manned spaceflight.

Don't worry, I do know what I'm talking about ;).

[SirTezza]

Don't worry, I do know what I'm talking about ;).

Well it is good that you do. I wish you had used your knowledge to better explain your point.

They were well aware of the radiation a long time before the Apollo program. Meaning that they would have taken precautions to keep the astronauts safe. So it makes me laugh when people state the obvious thing - oh the radiation would have killed them - ... to be honest people, if they were 'faking' a moon landing, I think they would have mentioned the radiation a lot more, because they would be trying to hard to prove it to be true.

The Van Allen belt was not a major issue.

I will further explain why, for those that want to know why N!ck is incorrect.

Radiation legal exposure limits were set on Earth for those people that were in constant contact with radiation. Each Apollo spacecraft stayed under that limit, meaning they were perfectly safe, if not safer than those that work with radiation on Earth. Another fact is that, as I said before the trajectory of the spacecraft took it to the very edge of the Van Allen belt - meaning even less radiation.

The Apollo spacecrafts did not make their Trans-Lunar Injection burn until exactly the right time, to allow them to miss the highest points of radiation.

[N!ck]

Well it is good that you do. I wish you had used your knowledge to better explain your point.

They were well aware of the radiation a long time before the Apollo program. Meaning that they would have taken precautions to keep the astronauts safe. So it makes me laugh when people state the obvious thing - oh the radiation would have killed them - ... to be honest people, if they were 'faking' a moon landing, I think they would have mentioned the radiation a lot more, because they would be trying to hard to prove it to be true.

The Van Allen belt was not a major issue.

I will further explain why, for those that want to know why N!ck is incorrect.

Radiation legal exposure limits were set on Earth for those people that were in constant contact with radiation. Each Apollo spacecraft stayed under that limit, meaning they were perfectly safe, if not safer than those that work with radiation on Earth. Another fact is that, as I said before the trajectory of the spacecraft took it to the very edge of the Van Allen belt - meaning even less radiation.

The Apollo spacecrafts did not make their Trans-Lunar Injection burn until exactly the right time, to allow them to miss the highest points of radiation.

I was basing my statement on radiation values that appear to be unjustified. My issue is still that it wouldn't be attenuated very much by the very thin "protection" but wouldn't be as much of an issue as first thought.

[SirTezza]

It may surprise you to know that even the astronauts in low earth orbit, right now, are exposed to radiation. They are not in deep space, however radiation is still a problem for those on the space station. Considering they have been in orbit a long time, in comparison to the length of time the Apollo astronauts were exposed, I'd say it's pretty obvious the radiation isn't a MASSIVE issue at this point.

A thin layer of metal can absolutely shield the charged particle radiation from getting in, which is why Apollo were able to fly relatively safely.

[Santorefish]

Personaly im on the fence, there is NO wind on the moon so how the flag was flapping is beyond me. But there was a race for the moon so im not sure that they would all be in on the 'hoax'

[N!ck]

Personaly im on the fence, there is NO wind on the moon so how the flag was flapping is beyond me. But there was a race for the moon so im not sure that they would all be in on the 'hoax'

No air resistance, so any displacement will take much longer to die down.

[Santorefish]

Fair point, wht about the shadows though?

[SirTezza]

Personaly im on the fence, there is NO wind on the moon so how the flag was flapping is beyond me. But there was a race for the moon so im not sure that they would all be in on the 'hoax'

This is the most asked question and the most irritating. I think I did answer it previously, for those inept in this subject.

Without drag, gravity or any other force working on the flag, the momentum will make the flag move. Since it is in a vacuum it will take longer to stop waving. That gives the illusion of wind.

They are pushing and twisting the flag poll. Remember there is also a bar along the top to keep the flag upright. Now doing that will make the flag move. Without the above mentioned forces, the momentum has no resistance, taking it longer to settle.

There is no wind. That is ridiculous.

[N!ck]

Without drag, gravity or any other force working on the flag,

LOLWUT?

Plus internal resistance forces too.

[Santorefish]

Still does not explain the shadows of the astronauts

[N!ck]

Still does not explain the shadows of the astronauts

Uneven suface.

[SirTezza]

LOLWUT?

Plus internal resistance forces too.

I meant, less gravity working on it, lol.


Still does not explain the shadows of the astronauts

Unfortunately for debunkers like yourself, there are simple explanations to explain every aspect of shadow. On the moon it is more a matter of perspective, rather than it being general. Like N!ck says... uneven surface.. that is one factor. Let me explain another.

Reflected sunlight is not considered by people trying to say the landings were fake. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight. Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photos

Next question please.

[karter]

See? All the Points that jealous countries like Russia put have been proved already.
What the countries did was highlight some facts that a common man couldn't believe..

[SirTezza]

See? All the Points that jealous countries like Russia put have been proved already.
What the countries did was highlight some facts that a common man couldn't believe..

Yup, exactly. Sometimes I find it rude that people that have no clue about a subject, attempt to debunk it with common, overused questions.

All of the questions can be answered. I spent my life and will spend the rest of it dedicated to science, and when a person comes a long without any knowledge on a subject, I find it rude - they should at least find out some facts before challenging someone with a question that they don't really know the answers to anyway.

If it was a random question, because they want to know more, that is fine. But making a statement that tries to debunk it, without knowledge is not.

[N!ck]

I meant, less gravity working on it, lol.


Strength of gravitational field makes no difference as it's a conservative force. It just changes the rate that it swings at ie slower in less gravity. Still with the same aplitude though.

[SirTezza]

Yes exactly.. slower in less gravity.

The rate of oscillation whilst they were moving the pole on the moon was slower than it would have been here on earth. The momentum was stronger, due to less resistance, but the speed was slower, due to less gravity.

[N!ck]

Yes exactly.. slower in less gravity.

The rate of oscillation whilst they were moving the pole on the moon was slower than it would have been here on earth. The momentum was stronger, due to less resistance, but the speed was slower, due to less gravity.

I think you're a little out of your depth with the physics. Monentum would also be less under less gravity.

It's purely lack of air resistance that's making it seem to swing "impossibly".

[SirTezza]

Perhaps. Since mass x velocity creates momentum and the mass of an object will be less on the moon, I realise the mistake I made. That particular point I was definitely wrong. It was more a miss understanding on my part of what I had written, rather than being out of depth. I am pretty good with physics - even though it isn't my main subject area. However my point was still made, even with an inaccurate marking, which has now been corrected by you, and made concrete by my own re-read of what I said previously.

The point stays the same. The reason for the movement of the flag was not wind, but simply a lack of resistance. So hopefully that answers the question of the guy that mentioned wind.

[N!ck]

Perhaps. Since mass x velocity creates momentum and the mass of an object will be less on the moon, I realise the mistake I made. That particular point I was definitely wrong. It was more a miss understanding on my part of what I had written, rather than being out of depth. I am pretty good with physics - even though it isn't my main subject area. However my point was still made, even with an inaccurate marking, which has now been corrected by you, and made concrete by my own re-read of what I said previously.

The point stays the same. The reason for the movement of the flag was not wind, but simply a lack of resistance. So hopefully that answers the question of the guy that mentioned wind.

Mass is universal and is the same on Earth as the Moon. It's the lower speed that it's swinging at that means less momentum.

Theoretically it should swing around 2.5 times faster on Earth than the Moon. That's something we can check to see whether they were actually on the moon or not - check the video footage and look at the speed it swings on the Moon compared to Earth (MythBusters test) as there'd be no way to fake that in a studio (without slowing down footage) :). Will have a look myself after I'm done watching xFactor.

[SirTezza]

Yeh I did see that mythbusters video, I watched it on youtube the other day. They move the flag in earth conditions first, then they move it in a vacuum. The way it moves in a vacuum is almost identical to the way it moved when they were pushing it into the surface of the moon.

[karter]

Yeh I did see that mythbusters video, I watched it on youtube the other day. They move the flag in earth conditions first, then they move it in a vacuum. The way it moves in a vacuum is almost identical to the way it moved when they were pushing it into the surface of the moon.

I have seen that too.

[SirTezza]

Yup... So that blasts the notion of wind out the window.

[Wig44.]

This is the most asked question and the most irritating. I think I did answer it previously, for those inept in this subject.

Without drag, gravity or any other force working on the flag, the momentum will make the flag move. Since it is in a vacuum it will take longer to stop waving. That gives the illusion of wind.

They are pushing and twisting the flag poll. Remember there is also a bar along the top to keep the flag upright. Now doing that will make the flag move. Without the above mentioned forces, the momentum has no resistance, taking it longer to settle.

There is no wind. That is ridiculous.

If the 'momentum' (as you put it) has no resistive forces acting on it the flag would continue in motion forever. You know, Newton's first law?

[Josh!]

No it was not. My great grandpa worked at it.

[FlyingJesus]

because theres no gravity or friction in space

Ummm


We did a Neil Armstrong text in English Language, and another thing, on like the 1st lesson we had in English this girl said she had met an astronaut. She said although the moon landings 'may' be real, most of the pictures are fake.
Straight from the horses mouse.

I've met a professional football manager that doesn't mean I now know for certain 100% of football's history
I've met a guy dressed as Mickey Mouse but I don't tell people that everything I say concerning Disney is fact

etc etc lol horses mouse


Reflected sunlight is not considered by people trying to say the landings were fake. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight. Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photos

Also y'know, the fact that spaceships probably do have lights of some kind :P I'm not sure why people think the possibility of someone shining a torch at a funny angle means that it must have been done in a studio


If it was faked, there'd be plenty of ways by now to prove it once and for all rather than having a few random questions that have nothing to do with the actual event or can be answered easily if they are

[SirTezza]

If the 'momentum' (as you put it) has no resistive forces acting on it the flag would continue in motion forever. You know, Newton's first law?

Okay slight error - with LESS resistance. I hope that is clearer for you.

[Arch]

Ummm



I've met a professional football manager that doesn't mean I now know for certain 100% of football's history
I've met a guy dressed as Mickey Mouse but I don't tell people that everything I say concerning Disney is fact

etc etc lol horses mouse



Also y'know, the fact that spaceships probably do have lights of some kind :P I'm not sure why people think the possibility of someone shining a torch at a funny angle means that it must have been done in a studio


If it was faked, there'd be plenty of ways by now to prove it once and for all rather than having a few random questions that have nothing to do with the actual event or can be answered easily if they are

Its true in this day in age if it was done in a studio with all new technology and different ways of editing etc, someone would notice things wrong rather than just an angle something was filmed at