Was the 1969 Moon Landing a hoax?

[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.