Suck it, Moon truthers!

That's a cool project...

It won't sway the nutjobs though. They're already coming up with reasons why the explanation doesn't explain, or else they'll say nvidia is part of the conspiracy now. :tongue:
 
I had the pleasure of meeting and shaking both Buzz Aldrin's andicheal Collin's hand at the Air/Space museum a few years ago...both men are heroes of mine...there was never a doubt in my mind that they did everything they said they did...

Truthers can eat a bag of dicks...
 
The character of the lunar landing astronauts is like nothing else I've ever seen in other people. I can say with certainty that these guys would never be a part of some absurd farce.

Truthers eat a bag of dicks daily...
 
I met Colonel Aldrin about fifteen years ago. I'm not normally starstruck but that was a big deal to me.
 
futuramafry.jpg
 
I saw a cool interview with a guy who runs the Lick observatory program that regularly shoots a laser at a target left by apollo astronauts to measure the precise distance of the moon from the earth. He mentioned that his door is always open, but no conspiracy theory people have bothered to come by and observe him shoot the laser target and watch the return signal, followed by him moving the laser a few meters off axis and getting no reflection. He even had pre-deployment data showing there was no reflection the day before the landing that deployed the target, and like 40 years of signals after that.

There is also an interesting observation from a film expert who demonstrates clearly that the analog cameras of the era couldn't possibly reproduce the alleged 'slowed down' footage of astronauts on the moon. He calculated the amount of film that was required to even get close and such.
 
Ahh, here is the film guy.



And a sample of the laser reflectors....not from the source I was thinking, but a good explanation.



I've run into a few moon landing conspiracy people, and I always ask them why NASA would go to the moon, bring back lots of rocks and have those rocks be so similar to the earth to toss our understanding of how moons form up in the air for decades. Why not just make that data fake too? Turns out the moon and the earth are isotopically so similar that they led to the theory of a primordial giant impact that resulted in the moon and the earth being made from the same stuff in a post-impact dual body formation (and there are STILL competing models that are being debated). Why not make it fit the accepted models of the time? Why add a layer of controversy and change our collective perception of how moons can form? If you look at the scientific literature from the time, there was a massive outcry that the samples were contaminated with terrestrial dust, etc., and many, many follow up papers that confirm that the measurements were real. I suppose conspiracy theorists said that they couldn't fake the rocks, so they used earth rocks and hoped the collective scientific community wouldn't notice, but the technology to use a nuclear reactor and materials science to make the rocks look different clearly existed in the 1960's. Why make the only testable, physical evidence not coherent with the story and theory of the day?
 
Last edited:
Tiltsta said:
Ahh, here is the film guy.



And a sample of the laser reflectors....not from the source I was thinking, but a good explanation.



I've run into a few moon landing conspiracy people, and I always ask them why NASA would go to the moon, bring back lots of rocks and have those rocks be so similar to the earth to toss our understanding of how moons form up in the air for decades. Why not just make that data fake too? Turns out the moon and the earth are isotopically so similar that they led to the theory of a primordial giant impact that resulted in the moon and the earth being made from the same stuff in a post-impact dual body formation. Why not make it fit the accepted models of the time? Why add a layer of controversy and change our collective perception of how moons can form? If you look at the scientific literature from the time, there was a massive outcry that the samples were contaminated with terrestrial dust, etc., and many, many follow up papers that confirm that the measurements were real. I suppose conspiracy theorists said that they couldn't fake the rocks, so they used earth rocks and hoped the collective scientific community wouldn't notice, but the technology to use a nuclear reactor and materials science to make the rocks look different clearly existed in the 1960's. Why make the only testable, physical evidence not coherent with the story?
Click to expand...


Because people who create conspiracies like to fuck with us, that's why.
If you're gonna lie, lie big!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top