Mythbustin’ the Moon Hoax… Part I

By Phil Plait | March 11, 2008 9:00 am

I’m starting to receive a trickle of email informing me that the Mythbusters are tackling the Moon Hoax myth.

Yes, well, I need to divulge a secret: I know about it. I served as an informal advisor on the show. :-)

Second, no, before you ask: I have no idea how the testing went. They didn’t tell me anything about the results! Grrrrr.

Third, this looks like it’ll be an awesome episode. The build team — Kari, Grant, and Tory — went to Marshall Space Flight Center to use a vacuum chamber there (it was even reported in the local paper). Looks like they’ll be recreating Dave Scott’s famous feather and hammer drop from Apollo 15, as well as the hoax claim that dry lunar regolith can’t hold a footprint, and how the flag can wave in a vacuum.

There’s a NASA video on YouTube about the visit:

Fourth, the show will air on April 25. Mark your calendars! Update: I’ve been told the episode does not air April 25. The air date has not been set yet, but I’ll make sure I announce it when it is!

I know I’ll be watching, especially since I don’t know how exactly they tackled one or two of the issues we discussed. Reproducing the lunar surface in a studio can’t be terribly easy, but they’re a smart group. This should be a lot of fun to watch!

Tip o’ the spacesuit visor to BABloggee Oscar Martinez Jr. for the YouTube vid tip.

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments (207)

  1. RAF

    JayUtah mentioned over on Apollo hoax that he was consulted regarding the lighting of the Aldrin egress photos.

    Should be a good show.

  2. Todd

    Can’t wait! Now I just wonder, will they be using equipment and technology that was available at the time, or will they be using somewhat more advanced tech? Or some combination?

  3. Michelle

    I never miss a Mythbusters show, like usual!

    Well… I have to download ’em off torrents though. Because since this is Canada, the Discovery Canada channel airs the new shows what, months later? They are shameful. Shame shame shame. I can’t wait that long.

  4. Wait a minute. I wrote, produced, and directed all the Apollo lunar mission films for MSC. I’d be glad to tell them exactly how we faked it!

  5. Rowsdower

    Why does it not surprise me that they asked you about this, Phil? I mean you and Adam are buddies, right? Well, at least you met him. So it’s only natural that they ask you for help.

    Too bad they didn’t get you as an official adviser and put you on camera.

  6. uknesvuinng

    If I recall correctly, the flag waving had a good bit to do with inertia. As we all should recall from the Superhero special, Newton’s Laws can be tricky.

    *pretend I found the relevant video (testing the grappling hook cannon for the mythmobile) on youtube and posted its link here :P*

    Also, just where are they going to work in the obligatory explosions?

    And I’m calling it now that the fact they recreate the lunar surface for the experiment will be used as “proof” that the landings were faked.

  7. Michelle

    @Uknesvuinng: Well… I wanna know what an explosion would look like on the Moon. <_<

  8. uknesvuinngon:
    I agree. If they successfully recreate any of it, the hoaxers will say that’s proof that these things could’ve been faked. The problem is, conspiracy theories are inherently unfalsifiable.

  9. Michael Amato

    I will be watching this show with great anticipation. i do have some doubts about whether we landed on the moon or not. These new satellites that are and will be orbiting the moon should be able to see the big rovers on the moon with no trouble. Right now we can easily see the tiny Mars rovers from Mars orbiting satellites . These new satellites that will be orbiting the moon will end the debate one way or the other within a couple of years.

  10. Do you have that date right? MythBusters has always aired on Wednesdays, but it’s a Friday. If it airs that week my guess would be the 23rd, unless they’ve changed the air date. Which would be incredible, since the Friday night slot is where TV shows go to die, and MythBusters is far too popular for that.

  11. Todd

    @uknesvuinng

    “Also, just where are they going to work in the obligatory explosions?”

    Maybe some live model version of the game Lunar Lander?

  12. Pat
  13. @Michael Amato: If you don’t believe man landed on the moon based on currently available pictures of moon buggies on the moon; why would you be convinced based on new images of moon buggies on the moon?

  14. Crux Australis

    I’d better start watching Mythbusters.

  15. Todd

    @Crux Australis

    Yes. You have been depriving yourself of a great experience.

  16. John Foudy

    Michael A:

    One of the Lunar missions (Apollo 11) left a reflective plate on the Moon- that plate has been seen from the Earth.

    But really, all the evidence you need is this: If we faked the moon landings, the Soviets would have called us on it.

  17. I don’t know how i’d never seen video of the hammer and the feather, only heard about it. I paste it here for your viewing pleasure. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6926891572259784994

  18. Ravens Cry

    J. Foudy.
    Luckily there is other supporting evidence, but yes, so far, no moon hoax conspiracy theorist has offered any explanation for this besides expanding the conspiracy to bombastic proportions, as if it wasn’t already. Usually at this point the ‘Jewish controlled’ media is said to be involved as well. This isn’t a stereotype this comes from personal experience with these fellow human beings.

  19. Irishman

    John, just to prove you wrong;

    A) The reflective “plate” (i.e. corner cube) could have been placed robotically. After all, the Russians put one there robotically. (Nevermind that the Russians did a lousy alignment job because human alignment at the time was more precise, and nevermind there’s no evidence of a robotic design to accomplish the task, just rely on the handwave of the conspiracist.)

    B) The Soviets were having a famine, and the U.S. government worked out a secret deal to send them grain shipments in return for their covert agreement to sustain the U.S. moon landing hoax and let us win the race. However, the Soviets then changed their story and claimed they were never in the race to begin with. Thus they didn’t negate the U.S. hoax claim and invalidate the secret deal, but still saved face. (Um, right, we faked the Moon landings to convince the Soviets we were better than them, then bribed them to go along with our fake. Uh, okay.)

    zandperl is right.

  20. Frac

    @Michelle – watch the liftoff. The thrust will give you some idea. It’s an explosion of sorts.

    Makes me think of a geek think that I’ve always wondered about too. On Star Trek Voyager, the opening credits show the ship skimming a nebula and causing wing vortices. Would that happen?

    How much particulate matter do you have to add to a vacuum to see vortices? Do the particles need to be held in a gas?

    For example, can you make a smoke ring in a vacuum? If not, at what pressure does it stop working? Etc. Etc. Etc.

  21. Quiet_Desperation

    Hoaxers: you can never *EVER* get past the impossibility of thousands of people needing to keep a secret for a very long time.

    Forget waving flags. Forget footprints. Forget stars not showing up on the pictures. Forget the Van Allen belts. All piffle.

    You still need an enormous number of people keeping a massive secret to themselves for 50 years. Not happening. Not in this world.

    Everything else is irrelevant.

    One hundred thousand people can keep a secret if 99,999 of them are dead.

    I’ll watch the show because I love me some Mythbusters, but it’s unnecessary.

    Oh, Jeebus, they’re going to end the show by blowing up the moon, aren’t they? 😮

  22. OOh can’t wait! I *heart* the Mythbusters!

  23. Crux Australis

    “One hundred thousand people can keep a secret if 99,999 of them are

    dead.” Love it!

  24. Truth

    The flag was not “waving.” In all footage of the flag, it appears to move (or “wave”) only when it is actually being *moved by the astronauts.* The flag was not a normal flag – the fabric had a wire mesh sewn into it so that it would appear unfurled on the lunar surface (otherwise, it would have just hung there limply). It was unrolled and held its position as you’ve seen in the pictures, but it never “waved” as if there were winds.

  25. Peter B

    Michael Amato said: “i do have some doubts about whether we landed on the moon or not. These new satellites that are and will be orbiting the moon should be able to see the big rovers on the moon with no trouble.”

    Oh it was faked all right. Once they realised people might start looking at the Moon seriously, NASA sent up spacecraft which looked like Lunar Module Descent Stages which robotically unloaded various objects around them, to make it look as though astronauts had been there.

    */satire*

    Seriously, have you read the Bad Astronomer’s Moon Hoax page? If so, what about it failed to convince you?

  26. Peter B

    Truth said: “the fabric had a wire mesh sewn into it so that it would appear unfurled on the lunar surface”

    With respect, that’s incorrect. The flag simply hung from a horizontal pole, like a curtain from a railing. It looked windblown because it was suffering the aftereffects of having been packed very tightly.

  27. dziban

    They consulted me on which cheek was generally lifted to flatulate on the moon. The left, of course.

  28. DexX

    The Mythbusters will fail because the Flying Spaghetti Monster will alter the outcome of their experiments with a single touch from his noodly appendage.

  29. John Foudy, the “reflective plate” was the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. It wasn’t actually a reflective plate but an array of corner reflectors. Each is an arrangement of three mirrors at right angles like the inside of the corner of a cube. This arrangement reflects an incoming beam of light back in the direction it came.

    These reflectors were deployed on three Apollo landings: Apollo 11, 14 and 15. The Apollo 15 reflector was larger than the other two. See the Wikipedia article Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. A lot of good scientific results have come from these simple, passive devices.

  30. Just Al

    Hmmm, get rich quick scheme:

    Get own TV show. Get popular enough that “disappearing” or sudden unexplained deaths would arouse too much suspicion.

    Then, announce an episode to investigate the government’s most closely guarded secrets.

    Rake in dough from being paid off to fudge the results and maintain the conspiracy.

    Retire in blissful greed. Avoid elevator shafts.

    * * * *

    We really did go to the moon, though. That’s where we buried Hoffa because he shot (but not fatally) JFK. It’s obvious!

    [The most fun you can have with conspiracy theorists is to introduce a bigger, stupider conspiracy. Most will be too uncomfortable to point out the stupidity. A select few will jump right in on it. Just keep raising the stakes and making it stupider. You’ll have a blast!]

  31. NE1

    One word: retroreflector.

  32. Chris

    I would like to point out that about 5 years before Fox broke the “Moon Landing Hoax” hoax, that I read almost the same exact story in Weekly World News.

  33. Chas

    hey, wait — doesn’t turning it over to the mythbusters imply that the landings are a myth?

    Also I really hate their carefully scripted “spontainous ad-libbed conversations” Lame!

    (But if they called me to come help, there’d be a me-shaped hole in the air…)

  34. Todd

    @QD

    “Oh, Jeebus, they’re going to end the show by blowing up the moon, aren’t they?”

    Actually, I heard they were going to use a high-powered green laser to reflect “BUSTED” off of the full moon. Either that or use explosives to carve it into the moon’s surface.

  35. Eric

    I have a better idea.

    How about the Mythbusters test whether 9/11 could have been caused by the so called “pancake theory”. This is the formal explanation for the buildings’ collapse, in which the superheated jet fuel from the airliners severed entire floors from their central supports. The loose floors in turn smashed into the floors below them, starting a chain reaction and leveling the whole building.

    This post is already long winded (and off topic, because i just realized that this is an astronomy blog), but I will conclude with saying that the above-mentioned explanation, although official by the government, has been debunked as impossible by many other sources and runs counterintuitively to reason (jet fuel is not hot enough by a long shot to melt steel).

    I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I feel we should know the truth, no matter how ugly.

  36. Eric for starters here is your ugly truth for you as debunked by Popular Mechanics…

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

    The jet fuel melted steel explanation is on the fourth page.

  37. Daniel

    Hi Eric,

    The initially proposed “pancake” model was abandoned by investigators as additional evidence came to light. It is no longer considered accurate by any government bodies.

    Best regards,
    Daniel

  38. 01101001

    Can you folks please take the 9/11 conspiracy discusssion somewhere where the focus isn’t on the spicy spaciness and awesome astronomicality of the Apollo Hoax? Thanks.

  39. Daniel

    My last comment was potentially unclear. The floors did still pancake in a sense, but they were not catastrophically severed. The combination of heat and physical damage caused the floors to sag inwards, placing tremendous amounts of stress on the exterior of the structure. The effect of this was magnified by the significant structural damage the building had suffered in that area. This inward force on the shell of the buildings finally caused them to buckle at the weakest point (the impact points).

    Unlike a controlled demolition (when every part of the building starts falling at the same time), the segments of the buildings above the points of impact moved first, and essentially crushed the remainder of the structure.

    Anyways, ASTRONOMY!

  40. This is going to be very interesting to watch lol, I always had a feeling the landing on the moon was a hoax. :)

  41. Skeptical

    Will they mention the Van Allen radiation belt surrounding the Earth?

  42. StuartVO

    Look, I know Eddie, Alex and David are awesome musicians, but this rumour that they tied all the Apollo rockets to the ground using their belts must be quashed.

    After all, if they had, what would be keeping their pants up?

  43. yah

    Apollo 11 video fake, all landings real.

  44. csrster

    “If I recall correctly, the flag waving had a good bit to do with inertia.”

    Hmm. Generally speaking all motion has “a bit to do with inertia”. Unless, maybe, it’s motion of a photon.

  45. devin

    never before or after 9/11 has a steel high rise structure collapsed due to fire or heat. many buildings have burned hotter and longer.

  46. BiTN

    Quote: “These new satellites that are and will be orbiting the moon should be able to see the big rovers on the moon with no trouble.”

    I know there is a lot of impacts on the moon. Could it be possible that an impact right beneath a rover could launch the rover into space (if you take the small gravitational field of the moon, think it is 6 times smaller than on earth, into account)?

  47. Daniel

    Devin, that argument is useless. There has never been a valid comparable. Show me an example of a building on the physical scale of the WTC that suffered a combination of widespread fire and massive structural damage.

    I don’t want to risk moving the thread off topic, but it’s quite hard to leave statements like this unchallenged.

  48. i kinda like mythbusters …
    i need to watch this moon landing episode …
    i need to know what happened and if you americans went to the moon or not …
    i’ll have to torrent this off the internet on 23rd …

  49. Eric

    Thank you Daniel and Shane for clearing those things up for me.

  50. TEO

    Mythbusters teh s*it :)

    TV doesn’t get any better than this. The moon hoax episode will certainly be interesting. But as someone mentioned earlier the tinfoil hats will use the show as evidence for their crazy theories.

  51. Becca

    I can say with certainty that a large number of people who are questioning the veracity of the lunar landing will no longer doubt once they can see current images of items left on the moon (even if conspiracy theorists say they were doctored! – conspiracy theoriests, btw, are much like Creationists).

    I hope you scientist people are revving up some super satellite cameras to get those photos.

  52. Seth

    So really, they’re going to try to prove that the moon landing was real by re-creating/re-enacting the moon mission on earth thus showing that it could be faked?

  53. Liam

    Sounds good, I’ve been waiting for the mythbusters to hit this particular field of nonsense for ages. I just hope Discovery UK pulls its finger out so I don’t have to wait until September to see it.

    @Becca: NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter launched later this year will have the resolution (1m) to capture images of the original Apollo landing sites. Obviously though our 10ft tall polymorphic space lizard overlords will simply photoshop these in while removing the giant soul sucking floating crystal towers on the darkside of the moon.

  54. MartinM

    So really, they’re going to try to prove that the moon landing was real by re-creating/re-enacting the moon mission on earth thus showing that it could be faked?

    Not really. The typical Moon-hoax argument is of the form “X couldn’t happen on the Moon.” What Mythbusters are (presumably) doing is simulating lunar conditions to show that such claims are incorrect. The idea is probably not so much to prove that the landings happened, but that the proposed reasons for doubting this are wrong.

  55. Steve

    I thought the moon was made of cheese.

  56. sirjonsnow

    Seth – I would imagine they will prove how it’s NOT possible to fake it in a studio.

  57. john

    The hoax thing is getting old, folks.

    They’re sending two probes to the moon. One is going to crash into it, the other is going to run circles around it to take a really good look at the topology.

    So they’ll be taking pictures. Some of these pictures will contain images of the human activity that has occurred on the moon.

    6 teams have landed on the moon [obviously not Apollo 13] and left physical evidence of their presence.

    NASA would have to be -very- creative to doctor all the pictures that came back from the moon to reflect all the activity that is supposed to have taken place there if they hadn’t in fact landed. Maybe they could keep a secret back then. It sure won’t happen anymore today.

    i don’t believe it can be done anymore. In this day and age it would take a stupid amount of money to maintain the hoax [imagine keeping up lying consistently and continuously about something of that magnitude].

    What could possibly be the point?

    I’m certain that the government doesn’t tell the public everything, and the recent discoveries of rendition flights for alledged terrorists is a case in point, but to lie about this would bespeak pathological egomania.

    Other countries will also be sending probes to the moon, they too will be taking pictures. Are they all supposed to use the same material showing a fake landing?

    a moon landing hoax makes no sense.

    However: I still have not heard any sane explanation for the collapese of WTC7 if it was not a controlled demolition. All the rest of what happened on that day aside, a symmetrical near free-fall collapse of that building from a bit of fire and some collateral damage. I’m not buying it. Not when the PNAC was begging for a new Pearl Harbor to jump start the empire a few years earlier.

  58. david

    For you 9/11 conspiracy people out there, read the book called “The Looming Towers: 9-11 and the road to Al-Queda”

    Second read the popular mechanics article

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

    Thirdly, go to college and get a real education and stop being part of the 85% of America that doesn’t have a college degree.

  59. Shoeshine Boy

    So, Kari, Grant, and Tory visited Marshall Space Flight Center?

    That means that the moon landing hoax theory is so easy to debunk that the Mythbusters “B” team can handle it without even having to break out the big-guns Jamie and Adam.

  60. Todd

    @john

    Well, clearly the international secret organization variously called the Illuminati, the Templars, the Masons, etc. control all of the governments in the world. That’s how every space program can be touched up to keep conflicting reports from popping up.

    In fact, how do we even know that a person has really been up in space? All the footage of people climbing into their rockets and shuttles and whatnot could have been cut from studio-produced footage, and all those launches have just been to shoot the documentary evidence for any government secret into the sun!

    Sounds stupid enough. Maybe I should devote my energies to spreading conspiracies.

  61. david

    for further proof backing up todd

    see southpark episodes “the mystrey of the urinal duece” and “The Hair Club For Men” easter episode, lol.

  62. Finally proof. I knew it 😉

  63. alfaniner

    Five years ago I’d never heard of either of these conspiracy theories (is there another word besides “theory” to use? One that I could use on this blog? I hate that it gets used in the same way as “the theory of evolution”.)

    Now these arguments seem to come up in every blog, youtube video, or mention of either subject. Crazy.

  64. BlondeReb3

    Shoeshine – I didn’t even think of that! Good one!

    I love Mythbusters, and I cannot wait to watch this one!

  65. Awesome!! I love that show! 😀

  66. Scott

    The popular mechanics article that people keep referencing has been debunked OVER and OVER and OVER again…if that is all you have to disprove ‘conspiracy theorists’ claims that building 7 had to be a controlled demolition, you are in serious trouble. Even the government itself in the 9/11 commission report says there is no rational explaination as to why building 7 fell that day.

  67. sirjonsnow

    “Thirdly, go to college and get a real education and stop being part of the 85% of America that doesn’t have a college degree.”

    Hey now, don’t go lumping me in with hoax believers and conspiracy theorists just because I don’t have a degree. Me can read good.

    Also, that’s a pretty ignorant comment to use as some kind of brand that only college graduates can think rationally. How many college graduates said they believe in Intelligent Design not too long ago at some televised debates?

  68. Ralph Wiggum

    My cat’s breath smells like cat food.

  69. Tosk

    I always figured the flag waving was because there was a small wire inside the flag’s cloth to give it the illusion that it was waving. *shrugs*

  70. Eric posts:

    [[jet fuel is not hot enough by a long shot to melt steel]]

    It doesn’t have to be. Steel weakens considerably from heat long before it reaches the melting point.

    My physics degree perhaps doesn’t qualify me to say this, but note that I worked for four years at the USX Edgar Thompson Works in Braddock PA.

    Or just look up an engineering reference on steel.

  71. Rusti

    wow his stuff is wrong astronomer ??

    Phil is such a nincompoop he has no idea of what science really is , he makes constant mistakes that an astronomer should know . he is a retarded idiot pretending to be important , he doesn’t even work !!

  72. devin posts:

    [[never before or after 9/11 has a steel high rise structure collapsed due to fire or heat. many buildings have burned hotter and longer.]]

    I understand the World Trade Towers were somewhat larger and heavier than usual. Does anybody know?

  73. john posts:

    [[ I still have not heard any sane explanation for the collapese of WTC7 if it was not a controlled demolition. All the rest of what happened on that day aside, a symmetrical near free-fall collapse of that building from a bit of fire and some collateral damage.]]

    How about the fact that it was hit by flaming debris from WTC1 and WTC2?

    In a controlled demolition, they blow out the first floor and let gravity collapse the rest. There’s no controlled demolition that works from the top down.

  74. Wayne

    My understanding is they did some work on a few of these with NTS in california(the footprint part?) the company that swung that Ford F150 around by the recovery hooks in that superbowl commercial.

  75. Dick

    Whoever said

    “Hoaxers: you can never *EVER* get past the impossibility of thousands of people needing to keep a secret for a very long time.”

    A little info for that guy. If you can’t keep a lie that a lot of people know about for a long time, how do you explain like every religion that has ever been fabricated. Clearly those lies have duped a lot of people and for a long time. And a bunch of people kept quiet and pushed the lie.

    I guess scientology is also real because you could never push a big lie like that.

    BTW
    My dad worked for Grumman for the original manned mission to the moon. Of course he laughs when i propose the possible idea to him that it may have been faked. Just because he was an engineer who designed the instrument panels doesnt mean he knows whether or not we landed. So there were very many people working on these projects. But like with many huge projects, many of these people have small pieces they are responsible for and have no idea how the end result works with all of these pieces together.

    Either way if it was so freakin easy for us to get there almost 40 years ago with our powerful computers no better than a Timex Sinclair why havent we gone back. And why do we need like 20 years of planning to make it back.

    Do a little research also into which admin was in charge of the executive branch at the time we made it to the moon manned.

    It comprised some of the sleaziest members of office ever. Maybe only rivaled by the current administration of today. Oh wait, they were many of the same people.

    Shady…

  76. Jarno

    Can’t wait!

    Unfortunately, in Finland, I think the show is shown with quite a bit of delay. Not sure though. If that is the case, I guess I’ll just have to rely on the Internets to find the episode. :)

  77. Good. I am sick of the moon hoax chumps. Mirrors on the moon, moon rocks and corroboration from all over the world just isn’t enough for them. Hopefully this episode will kick a few in touch. Unfortunately I think most are too stubborn.

  78. Quiet_Desperation

    Dick said, “If you can’t keep a lie that a lot of people know about for a long time, how do you explain like every religion that has ever been fabricated. Clearly those lies have duped a lot of people and for a long time. And a bunch of people kept quiet and pushed the lie.

    Because it’s not a secret. It’s faith. Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. You’ve got an entirely different animal there. For your analogy to parse, the people involved in the Moon Hoax would have to believe that it actually happened.

    Actually, it’s the conspiracy theories that have taken on the aspect of religions. Dawkin’s other book, The Selfish Gene, might help you gain illumination on where your thought processes have gone awry.

    The reason we haven’t gone back is simply because there has been no will to do so, and the effort requires an infrastructure that simply isn’t there anymore. There isn’t a rocket/vehicle combo in production today that has the capability of a lunar orbit insertion and safe return.

    We probably have the technology today to solve world hunger and most of the world’s health problems. Are we doing it? The will isn’t there.

    Seriously: if you buy into these conspiracy theories you are flirting with mental illness. Get help and get educated. Here’s a good site:

    http://www.clavius.org/

  79. Quiet_Desperation

    Good. I am sick of the moon hoax chumps. Mirrors on the moon, moon rocks and corroboration from all over the world just isn’t enough for them. Hopefully this episode will kick a few in touch. Unfortunately I think most are too stubborn.

    Sadly, it’s a form of mental illness.

    The beginnings of belief in a onspiracy theory may be a simple search for meaningfulness deriving from some sort of disillusionment or psychological projection or a host of other reasons.

    Once the conspiracy theory takes root, other common human fallacies begin to kick in, such as confirmation bias and a form of cognitive dissonance caused by the conflict of what their irrational needs makes them want to believe and what the last remining shreds of their ability to reason tells them is actually true.

    Because most of the conspiracy faithful these days got their beliefs from the internet, community reinforcement plays a huge role in sustaining the broken thought patterns.

    Christopher Hitchens called the conspiracy theories “the exhaust fumes of democracy.” They are unavoidable, especially in a technological, information saturated society such as ours. There are always going to be a subset of people with minds that cannot operate effectively in such an environment.

    When a major and traumatic event hits that society, those individuals will flounder even more, looking for an extraordinary explanation to an extraordinary event when the truth turns out to be sad, pathetic and relatively mundane. They’d be pitiable people if they didn’t act like such utter and complete asswipes, earning only contempt instead of sympathy for their delusions.

  80. Patrick

    As to WTC7, go to the 1/29/08 episode and read or listen to it. Pretty clear description of why it fell with no need for any kind of conspiracy.

    As to the Moon Hoax, I hardly know what to say. To believe we didn’t land on the Moon requires such an extraordinary level of disregard for logic and reason that it always just leaves me sputtering. There is no argument against the Moon landing — for a conspiracy — that even comes remotely close to making sense. Fortunately, the Moon Hoax argument is so brainless that I can’t imagine there’s a danger of it infecting schools as Creationism has done.

  81. Patrick

    Oops. I mean go to the 1/29/08 episode of Skeptoid, as skeptoid.com.

    Sorry.

  82. Dick

    Quiet_Desperation

    Dont most of the religions start out as a lies? Or are they all correct? So someone started that lie and others beleieved it. So the people behind going to the moon didnt beleive in it before we “proved” we could get there? Isnt that faith also. And to say we dont have the infrastructure to go back to the moon, is total bs. Did we just go thru a dark age or have we just advanced technologically in the last 40 years.

    Yes, we may have let it go and no longer been interested. But what created our new formed interest?

    And if you think anyone who questions what we are told is a conspiracy theorist whacko, then you are a tool my friend. Go shave your head join the military and die in Iraq because you were told that the war is just. Dont question anything. The goverment said we did it, so it has to be right.

    No unlike you, I am creator of tools, not a tool itself. I am a scientist, inventor, as well as someone who beleieve in God. I dont let either of my beleifs alter my understanding of the world. And as I scientist I was taught to question.

    And by the way. Your world hunger analogy is wrong at best. Because we have never solved world hunger. According to the current beleifs shared by many in the US(note I said in the US), we made it to the moon. So you can say been there done that for the moon but not for the world hunger.

    Are you going to tell me next that The Gulf of Tonkin incident was not faked. That was a conspiracy as well. You are aware that was a huge lie and was propogated for a long time until declassified info proved it true a little bit back.

    So go shave your head and join The Neocon retards in their quest to dummy down our society. I bet you beleive that global warming is also a conspiracy theory.

    You need to get re-educated because someone messed up your way of thinking a long ago.

    Learn to think on your own and then you can post with your own idea, not Dawkin’s.

  83. Patrick

    Dick, your false choice between “believe in the conspiracy” or “you’re a tool/fool who believes everything the government says” is lazy and wrong — a typically trite logical fallacy — but it’s no doubt comforting for people who do not have the wit or fortitude to face unpleasant reality, and look to this conspiracy foolishness as a way to pretend to sophistication.

    You’re looking for the easy way to explain difficult truths, which usually means the wrong way. By buying into this crap, you are the one being led down the path of darkness. Not me.

  84. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Scott

    “The popular mechanics article that people keep referencing has been debunked OVER and OVER and OVER again…”

    Umm… no it hasn’t. Please point to which reputable scientific journal or study debunks this.

    “Even the government itself in the 9/11 commission report says there is no rational explaination as to why building 7 fell that day.”

    Ummm… no they don’t. You are paprphrasing and spinning what was actually said into what will fit your claim. Just because Rosie says it doesn’t make it true.

    I know I’ve said this before a million times, but I urge you…. PLEASE PLEASE learn to think for yourself, read for yourself, do the research and follow the science and don’t just simply beat the drum cause someone gave you the stick.

  85. Celtic_Evolution

    *sigh*… the word above should be “paraphrasing”.

  86. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Dick

    “A little info for that guy. If you can’t keep a lie that a lot of people know about for a long time, how do you explain like every religion that has ever been fabricated. Clearly those lies have duped a lot of people and for a long time. And a bunch of people kept quiet and pushed the lie.”

    The answer is quite simple really… plausible delusion. I think George Costanza put it best: “It’s not a lie if you believe it”.

    This is defferent than forcing people to keep a secret and hold up a lie about something they SAW the truth of and KNOW the truth of. There’s a huge difference between that and the example you gave.

  87. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Dick

    “Either way if it was so freakin easy for us to get there almost 40 years ago with our powerful computers no better than a Timex Sinclair why havent we gone back. And why do we need like 20 years of planning to make it back.”

    THIS is the most common and ignorant claim I hear from moon haox woo-woos. When anyone who has ever really read anything about the moon landings and what actually took place knows that it was ANYTHING but “so freakin’ easy”. In fact, ask anyone involved with Apollo 11 and they will tell you that if not for an inordinate amount of moxie from the flight crew, quick “think on your feet” individuals, and just plain dumb luck, that mission would have ended in tragedy. Interviews with some of the people involved point out that if the Apollo missions had continued as they were, there is no dout there would have been a tragic failure at some point.

    And that is (one of) the reason(s) it has taken us so long to even consider returning. Honestly, the safety concerns for the Apollo missions do not come close to what we consider an absolute necessity for any manned space-flight now. The justification for the cost of returning, from a political standpoint anyhow, has not been there. It’s not the lack of ability, Dick. If we *had* to get there and money was no object… it’d happen it short order.

  88. Calli Arcale

    The Moon landings and religion are, indeed, entirely different animals. Fear not, I will not post any of Dawkin’s ideas — I have read exactly zero of his books. These ideas are my own, though I’m definitely not the only person to have thought of them.

    The one common thread to the persistence of mainstream religions is that the majority of the claims are untestable — in most cases, because they involve events either outside of the universe or in the distant not-well-corroborated past. (I’m a Christian. I am thus often embarrassed at claims that Jesus existed because he’s mentioned in all of these other famous texts — i.e. his existence and his claim to being the Messiah were corroborated by non-Christian contemporaries. But the problem is that these texts aren’t actually contemporaries, and are at best third-hand accounts. They don’t prove the existence of Jesus so much as they do the existence of early Christians. But I digress.)

    So how is Christianity any different from the Apollo program? I believe both are real. But they are very different. Christianity is centered around an untestable claim: a bunch of guys 2,000 years ago started telling their friends that they’d seen this popular and controversial rabbi come back to life and that he’d told them he was the son of God, sent to forgive the world all of its sins and preach a message of ultimate love. Were those guys lying? Maybe. But it can’t be tested. Couldn’t be tested then either; the Jews and Gentiles to whom they preached really had no way of knowing if the apostles were on the level or if they were complete nutbags. Jesus was already dead by that time, after all, and had allegedly ceased appearing to people.

    The Apollo program is a different kettle of fish. Rather than a small bunch of people starting a fairy tale and convincing people to believe in it, this was the work of tens of thousands of people over a full decade. They would all have to have colluded, and colluded for a long period of time. I suppose if you were a small child or not even born yet, it might seem like it did for the early Christians — somebody trying to convince you that something really happened a while ago. But for a lot of people still alive today, it happened during their adult lifetimes. During their actual *careers*, in many cases. It’s really not comparable to Christianity.

    Basically, where your argument breaks down is that the people who worked on the Apollo program would not be analogous to modern Christians (or even ancient Christians). They would be analogous to the original apostles — i.e. the actual hoaxers, if one believes it to be a fraud. And there’s the problem with most conspiracy theories. Such frauds can be quite successful. Scientology is an excellent example; there is considerable evidence that it really did begin as a deliberate fraud. But only a select few are in on that reality. The audience is kept mum. If Christianity started out as an honest-to-goodness hoax, it would’ve been the apostles who would’ve been the culprits. A small, tightly knit group capable of colluding on something like this. You can’t expect tens of thousands of people to collude successfully. And yes, your dad would’ve had to be in on the hoax. Perhaps you never properly appreciated the complexity of his work, but it’s awfully hard to be involved in this sort of thing and not suspect something is amiss if it’s all just a hoax. And even if not the low-level flunkies (I doubt your dad was just a flunky, but I don’t know), there were an awful lot of high-level folks involved. Far too many for a successful conspiracy, and that’s even ignoring the tantalizing promise of rewards for turning traitor and selling the conspiracy out to the Soviet Union. The USSR would’ve loved that.

    There are too many people who would’ve had to have been in on the conspiracy, basically. And that’s where the analogy to religion breaks down, because most of those are started by a small number of individuals, or in some notable cases only one individual.

  89. John Foudy

    Devin-

    90 West and 7 World Trade both burned longer than the two towers-
    World Trade also collapsed

    90 West didn’t and has been refurbished- fire protection in 90 West was a case of early 20th century engineering overkill- ceramic/clay tiles were individually affixed to the structural elements (kind of like the Space Shuttle) , the cost to do that today would be prohibitive,

    7 World Trade had the same type of spray on fire retardant crap that the towers had…

    I was in 90 West 3 weeks after 9/11, the interior was mostly* completely gutted (it was pretty damn eerie, especially the blackened misshapen file cabinets with the fine dark gray ash inside…)…

    * A few floors in the middle were largely intact- it burned from the bottom up and from the top down, the FDNY managed to put the fire out at both ends before the 12th through 14th floors were gutted… On the 13th floor the ceiling tiles had absorbed a ton of water, and fell as large soggy lumps on the floor of the 13th floor…

  90. SkepticTim

    Way back, about 2000 or 2001, CBC did an excellent hour long documentary that dissected the various pieces of ‘evidence’ used in the ‘Moon Landing Hoax” to illustrate how conspiracy theorists construct (and ‘prove’) their ‘theories’, and how to spot the inconsistencies. As I recall, their debunking of this particular case used some original sets – sets which were used in the filming of various sci-fi movies. It may be worthwhile the check CBC’s archives if such are available.

  91. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Dick

    Wow… OK… time to wrestle with the pigs…

    “Dont most of the religions start out as a lies? Or are they all correct? So someone started that lie and others beleieved it. So the people behind going to the moon didnt beleive in it before we “proved” we could get there? Isnt that faith also.”

    So many things wrong with those two statements I don’t even know where to begin. First, as a person of faith, as you state later in your post, your first line comes off quite sarcastically. So basing a point on sarcasm is a bad way to start. But to answer you… no… I don’t believe religion starts out INTENTIONALLY as a means of deception. I think it’s a uniquely human way of trying to make sense of the world we can not, or could not explain, and to help calm the deep seeded feeling of isolation. We also seem to have an inherent need to find purpose. Religion has always served as a means to provide answers to these problems. Again, I don’t think any religion was intentionaly started as an attempt at deception, nor do I think you can find any claim of one that does (except scientology, perhaps… chuckle).

    Second, I don’t think there was an inherent “faith” involved in getting to the moon. More like a hypothesis that it could be done based on the technology available and the knowledge of the time. We would put that hypothesis to the test, succeed, or fail and retry based on new information. No faith required.

    “And if you think anyone who questions what we are told is a conspiracy theorist whacko, then you are a tool my friend.”

    Hmmm… ok… good, sound, logical, fair, and factually backed argument. Well done, sir.

    “Go shave your head join the military and die in Iraq because you were told that the war is just.”

    Complete and total non-sequitor. The only person making a comparison between believing the moon hoax and what you just said is YOU. Belief in one is not required for the other to be considered. At this point you are just spouting. I think many of us here do have questions and concerns behind the reasons for the Iraq war and the need to continue it… It’s still totally beside the point for this conversation.

    “Are you going to tell me next that The Gulf of Tonkin incident was not faked. That was a conspiracy as well. You are aware that was a huge lie and was propogated for a long time until declassified info proved it true a little bit back.”

    Logical fallacy. Assuming that all, or even ANY of the “conspiricies” you are talking about are valid because this one was found to have substance is just.. well… dumb. Unless you can tie this event directly to any of those, there is no relevence in the comparison. All your example shows is that the government is capable of deceptive and questionable behavior. We already knew that. But we also know what we know about the other things like the Towers and the Moon landing because of our own observations and the science behind them… not because of what the Gov’t told us. That’s the difference.

    The world really is a much easier place to get along in when you reject paranoia and start thinking for yourself. Give it a try.

  92. Dick

    Have you ever heard the expression why has no one else done it before.

    I guess the Chinese have no desire to get there. Because there is no way they could have the technology, man power, money, manufacturing, and or military infrastructure to build a ship capable of sending someone to the moon.

    Only us. No other country.

    So if the Chinese make it there, I will be more inclined to beleive our original “footage” was in fact authentic.

    I never once said I am 100% convinced it was faked. I am merely stating there are enough factors there for a scientific mind to question it. One alone being that noone else did it. Just like machine guns, satellites, ballistic missles, nukes, etc. every one of these “military” acheivements will be copied by others. Why not that?

    And if you say it cant be done see the Chinese argument.

    We are not the only country with smart people. There are many others.

  93. Celtic_Evolution

    Dick, you continue to use non-relevant arguments that no-one here is making but you.

    “We are not the only country with smart people. There are many others.” So? This proves or even supports that we might not have done it? Gimme a break. This isn’t even an argument.

    “So if the Chinese make it there, I will be more inclined to beleive our original “footage” was in fact authentic.”

    So the Chinese didn’t do it, so that somehow supports that it can’t be done? That’s absurd logic. You want a list of things that other countries have achieved that the Chinese have not, or HAD not at the time of their achievment? Does that prove that all those achievments were faked? Do you not see how totally nuts your argument here is?

    “I never once said I am 100% convinced it was faked. I am merely stating there are enough factors there for a scientific mind to question it.”

    Actually, no there aren’t. All the “scientific” factors point without a doubt to the landing being quite real. It’s not the “scientific mind” that questions this. It’s the easily manipulated mind.

  94. Val

    NASA cooperated with their experiments. Enough said.

  95. John Foudy

    “Just like machine guns, satellites, ballistic missles, nukes, etc. every one of these “military” acheivements will be copied by others. Why not that?”

    Expense and utility.

    “Only us. No other country.”
    At the time pretty much, just us and the Soviets had:
    1: The scientific know how; AND
    2: The economic and industrial capacity; AND
    3: The ability and willingness to spend the time and money.

    The Soviets gave up because we beat them to it, their heavy lifter had more bugs to work out than our Saturn V had. Reaching the moon was more a political goal than anything else.

    Anyway, assuming China continues on their current path, they’ll probably go there too, because it’s a huge national prestige issue to them. Asking why China didn’t do it 30 years ago is absurd, all that shows is you know nothing about China.

    But then again, questioning whether or not the moon landings were faked is all the evidence one needs to determine whether or not you know anything about anything. Celtic Evolution is 100% correct, there are no factors which would lead someone with a “scientific mind” to question the moon landings- Big Foot’s existence is FAR more likely than the moon landings having been faked.

  96. Quiet_Desperation

    Dont most of the religions start out as a lies?

    Dick, the religion analogy is completely BROKEN. It does not parse. Give it up. There is evidence we went to the Moon. It is not faith to think so. I explained specifically why we haven’t been back to the Moon (lack of will and no launcher/vehicle combo in production) and you trot out some nonsense about a dark age.

    Yes, we may have let it go and no longer been interested. But what created our new formed interest?

    The Bush Administration’s edict, which sadly led to better space science programs losing out funding.

    And if you think anyone who questions what we are told is a conspiracy theorist whacko, then you are a tool my friend.

    Well, then it’s a good thing I didn’t say that, isn’t it?

    I was talking specifically about the Moon Hoax and the 9/11 fools.

    Here come the Strawman, folks. Remember the marching brooms from Fantasia? Same thing. :)

    Go shave your head join the military and die in Iraq because you were told that the war is just. Dont question anything. The goverment said we did it, so it has to be right.

    I was and am completely opposed to the Iraq war.

    I follow no rigid ideology, and base my views on the specific facts at hand for any situation as well as historical experience and critical thinking. If you had to label me, I probably fall in the realm of libertarianism, but not because is set out to become a Libertarisn.

    Personally, I think our government is becoming corrupt beyond redemption.

    But we still went to the Moon and you are still delusional.

    Your real problem is that I am questioning *YOU*, and you can’t handle it as shown by you very quick degradation to a schoolyard level of spittle launching.

    And by the way. Your world hunger analogy is wrong at best. Because we have never solved world hunger. According to the current beleifs shared by many in the US(note I said in the US), we made it to the moon. So you can say been there done that for the moon but not for the world hunger.

    You’ve once against utterly misunderstood what I said.

    Are you going to tell me next that The Gulf of Tonkin incident was not faked.

    And the Strawmen go marching on…

    In fact, I had considered mentioning it as an example of how conspiracies in the government leak. The truth about that incident was known well before 2005. For pity’s sake, Adml. Stockdale was casually mentioning the ships firing at nothing (as seen from his plane) in his book back in the early 1980’s.

    So go shave your head and join The Neocon retards in their quest to dummy down our society. I bet you beleive that global warming is also a conspiracy theory.

    Again with the head shaving!

    I am not a global warming denier, or whatver they are called these days.

    You need to get re-educated

    Oooo! Maybe I can go to a re-education camp! Would you like that, Dick? The black helicopters can take me there.

    because someone messed up your way of thinking a long ago. Learn to think on your own and then you can post with your own idea, not Dawkin’s.

    Translation: Dick will never ever read anything that might challenge his pseudo-religious belief system.

    Well, people educate themselves with books, right?

    Or do you mean I should go to ideological websites run by lunatics and read the 9-point, single spaced, paragraphless screeds? No, wait, actually I *have*! You see, I listen to ALL sides in a controversy.

    I simply have found you side, when viewed fully in the light, lacking in facts, rationality, self criticism and even a hint of sanity.

    I’ve held off on this, but you really are a nasty, vile piece of work, Dick. If you are any older than 15 you should be utterly ashamed of what you have made of yourself. You have willfully allowed your mind to be poisoned beyond redemption.

    OK, I’m done with you. I need to go hose off the bottoms of my shoes.

  97. Stuart

    Oh, and not to put too fine a point on it, but the Gulf of Tonkin isn’t really a valid argument in favor of world-spanning conspiracy theories.

    The conspiracy around the Gulf of Tonkin Incident began unraveling within just a few years, and by 1981 to 1984, the truth was already fairly well known. By the time the records were declassified, the facts of the matter were already pretty well known.

    In other words, with as many people as were directly involved in the GoT Incident, it didn’t take long – even with the threat of a Top Secret classification – for the facts to come out.

    To then claim that the GoT Incident is proof that the government can force people to keep a secret is disingenuous. It can’t.

  98. the lunar landing was not faked. the flag waves because the astronaut who planted it, set it up that way. there is a taped interview and video of him in the act! the flags apparently have a mechanism that unrolls the flag for ease of storage. this mechanism jammed so the astronaut is shown to have broken the casing of the mechanism and manually pulled the flag out. because of the vacuum of space, fabrics retain any and all wrinkles put into them. basically, his fumbling around made the flag look like crap. so in an effort to hide it, he is seen taking his hands and forming a wave in the flag. he said it was the only way to make it look patriotic with all the wrinkles, like its waving in the wind.

    many materials behave differently in low gravity and vacuum. lunar dust can certainly retain its shape since there is little gravity pulling it down and no atmostphere. it doesnt collapse or spread back out because there is little force acting on it.

    i certainly hope mythbusters observe the fact that simply applying vacuum to moondust wont recreate its moon-bound behavior.

    it is also widely known that the originals of the moon landing photos have been lost. the only ones remaining were copies sent to various news agencies across the world. nearly all of these photos have been edited. almost all of them underwent some form of editing to remove camera reticles. the reason the moon photos look edited is because they are! we just dont have the originals! and this is not a conspiracy either. moon photos were available up until the 80’s when they were lost when nasa moved alot of its material to the national archives. most think an enterprising office worker took them home as a valuable souvenier or that they were left in an opened canister and left to degrade and the incompetence of the staff at the time is being hidden. this doesnt equal a conspiracy of any kind.

    also… just because the mythbusters come to a conclusion doesnt mean its science fact. open your mind to the fact that the greatest conspiracy may in fact be that there never was a conspiracy.

  99. Sol

    With a universe so vast, we should think ourselves so small if we’re still limited to only having been as far as the Moon.

  100. Quiet Desperation

    i certainly hope mythbusters observe the fact that simply applying vacuum to moondust wont recreate its moon-bound behavior.

    Never fear. Jamie and Adam will hack together a rig from a block of milled aluminum, plastic wrap and ballistics gel that will reduce the Earth’s gravity in the shop to that of the Moon. 😉

  101. WDM

    Myth busters is a fun show: at least when it comes to blowing things up. But I am concerned that they do not have a good enough background in science or history to address this topic properly. They have made mistakes in the past, only to have a re-do show on the same topic.

    Most of us who were alive in the ’60s will ever doubt the reality of the moon landings. I watched the Apollo landings as a kid. As a young engineer I worked with several engineers that actually worked on the Apollo program.

    But I can almost understand how the moon landing must seem like a myth to a cynical and uneducated young mind.

    It really was an amazing accomplishment – I just wish that we had not scaled back, and had kept on exploring and then colonizing space. After the public lost interest in the space program, the politicians kept spending less and less, until we have reached the point where now the moon landing seems almost like a myth.

  102. Devin

    Why the hell does it even matter if they hoaxed the moon landing or not, we can get there now which is what matters, we needs to stop worrying about things that happened in the past so we can move on and focus on future progress.

  103. T.L

    No point in arguing now, just watch the show. Then i’m sure this topic will return with a vengeance.

  104. Frac says: “On Star Trek Voyager, the opening credits show the ship skimming a nebula and causing wing vortices’s. Would that happen? How much particulate matter do you have to add to a vacuum to see vortices? Do the particles need to be held in a gas?”

    I haven’t seen anyone else answer this, so I’ll go ahead even though it’s from a hundred posts up.

    You might want to search this blog for a little essay I did on vacuum a year or more ago. In it I describe some of the characteristics of gas flow at very low pressures. Here’s the short version:

    At the pressures we have here on the Earth’s surface (and for a good deal lower), we have a condition known as “viscous flow.” That means that the gasses surrounding us act like a fluid. The molecules are jammed so closely together (the “mean free path” between them is on the order of millionths of an inch/cm) that any energy imparted into them (e.g. sound waves) will be carried along by them bumping into each other. This is what you need for the kinds of vortices you mention.

    When you get down to pressures on the order of millionth of a millimeter of mercury you are in a regime called “molecular flow.” Here the molecules are on the order of a few inches/cm apart and act like ping-pong balls bouncing off of each other and any surface they encounter in straight lines. Any energy put into them, like by a spaceship passing, would simply cause them to bounce off in random directions according to the angle and direction of travel of whatever surface hit them.

    In between, there’s a regime called “Knudsen flow” which is a transition between viscous and molecular. Most vacuum systems try to stay out of that because it’s neither fish nor fowl, and difficult to control what happens in it.

    – Jack

  105. John Foudy says: “The Soviets gave up because we beat them to it, their heavy lifter had more bugs to work out than our Saturn V had.”

    There was a little more to it than that.

    The N1 (their moon rocket) development was under the development of Sergei Korolev, their “chief designer” and the direct analog of Wernher von Braun on the Apollo program. More than anyone else he was responsible for all of the initial Soviet successes in space, from Sputnik through the early manned missions.

    He went into the hospital for minor surgery in 1966 and basically was killed on the operating table by an incompetent doctor. The actual cause is variously reported as a heart attack, cancer or hemorrioids (really! Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Korolev )

    In typical bureaucratic form, the politburo turned N1 development over to the competing design bureau who not only bungled it badly, but managed to kill more of Russia’s top aerospace engineers and scientists in a launch pad explosion.

    In a most literal sense, they shot themselves in the foot on this one.

    – Jack

  106. Peter B

    Dick said: “So there were very many people working on these projects. But like with many huge projects, many of these people have small pieces they are responsible for and have no idea how the end result works with all of these pieces together.”

    It’s a popular hoax argument to suggest that only a few dozen people at the very top would have had a broad enough knowledge to need to be in on a hoax, and that the remaining several hundred thousand employees and contractors could have been kept in the dark. But it’s quite unrealistic.

    Take your Dad. He mightn’t have needed to know much beyond his own responsibilities. But what about his manager? Suppose a change is proposed in a system. How is it going to affect other LM systems? Is it going to affect Command Module systems? People would ask questions and seek information. In other words, there would have been thousands of employees and contractors who would have needed to know details of projects other than their own.

    “Either way if it was so freakin easy for us to get there almost 40 years ago with our powerful computers no better than a Timex Sinclair why havent we gone back.”

    It’s very easy for me to book a return air ticket to the USA and a bus trip for while I’m there. But both money (my lack of it) and public will (my wife wouldn’t be too thrilled to be left alone with the baby for a few weeks) essentially rule my American holiday out as something for me to do. So it is with going to the Moon. NASA doesn’t have the money to do it, and public will is such that Congress wasn’t likely to give it to them.

    “And why do we need like 20 years of planning to make it back.”

    I’m sure NASA could do it a lot faster if they were given a budget proportionate to what they had in the 1960s.

    “Do a little research also into which admin was in charge of the executive branch at the time we made it to the moon manned.”

    Well, there was a Democratic President in power when Apollo was actually being developed, and when Apollo 8 got to the Moon, and a Republican President in power when Apollos 11 to 17 landed on the Moon. Which administration are you talking about?

  107. Peter B

    Dick said: “The goverment said we did it, so it has to be right.”

    No. Engineers and scientists said we did it. And as they have evidence to support what they say, I’d tend to believe them.

  108. Peter B

    Dick said: “I am merely stating there are enough factors there for a scientific mind to question it.”

    There’s absolutely nothing wrong with questioning whether Apollo was real. What’s wrong is to unthinkingly dismiss the evidence supporting the reality of Apollo.

    “One alone being that noone else did it. Just like machine guns, satellites, ballistic missles, nukes, etc. every one of these “military” acheivements will be copied by others. Why not that?”

    Money.

    Because no other country was willing to spend US$25 billion (1960s money) on such a project. Apollo was hideously expensive, and most countries don’t have an economy the size of the USA.

    “We are not the only country with smart people. There are many others.”

    Quite true. But other countries don’t have US$175 billion in today’s money to redo Apollo.

  109. Peter B

    Devin asked: “Why the hell does it even matter if they hoaxed the moon landing or not?”

    Because if people believe Apollo was hoaxed, what other silly things might they believe.

    Fighting against the Apollo Hoax belief is about making people think critically. And if you can make people think critically about one thing, they might think critically about other things too.

  110. Quiet Desperation

    I haven’t seen anyone else answer this, so I’ll go ahead even though it’s from a hundred posts up.

    Actually, I think there’s an even easier answer. 😉

    Think of a nebula like a moderate fog. It’s thick and bright at a distance, but up close you can’t even see it. If you’ve ever been in a large field in a fog, there’s a seemingly clear area of air in a circle around you. As you move, it seems like the clear patch moves with you. I always thought a nebula is similar. You’ll only see the parts of it at a distance.

    And people sometimes forget all those pretty pictures are enormous time lapses.

  111. it is also widely known that the originals of the moon landing photos have been lost.

    I don’t know where you got that from, but it is simply not true.

    All the photos taken on the Moon’s surface, more then 10,000, are available as high resolution scans at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
    http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

    In in depth analysis of Apollo Hoax claims can be found at the Moon Base Clavius site.
    http://www.clavius.org

  112. MattFunke

    Dick: If you can’t keep a lie that a lot of people know about for a long time, how do you explain like every religion that has ever been fabricated.

    Apples and oranges. Faith, by definition, makes untestable claims. Historical claims like “The Apollo program took us to the Moon” are testable.

    Dick: My dad worked for Grumman for the original manned mission to the moon. Of course he laughs when i propose the possible idea to him that it may have been faked. Just because he was an engineer who designed the instrument panels doesnt mean he knows whether or not we landed. So there were very many people working on these projects. But like with many huge projects, many of these people have small pieces they are responsible for and have no idea how the end result works with all of these pieces together.

    Unfortunately for your suggestion, engineers are not stupid. If you give them a task like building a machine that will take people to the Moon, they will try to figure out the challenges involved and come up with ways to solve them.

    Basically, by the time you’re done, you have a machine which some very smart people have worked hard on and which they believe will take us to the Moon. So why not go?

    Dick: Either way if it was so freakin easy for us to get there almost 40 years ago with our powerful computers no better than a Timex Sinclair why havent we gone back.

    It was never “freakin easy”. I suggest you look at the NASA NTRS document server, where you can get all manner of technical documentation for free. The amount of ingenuity, understanding, effort, courage, and determination required to solve the problems they did is nothing short of staggering.

    We haven’t gone back because the people don’t want us to go back. The political will simply isn’t there. Comparison of the budget alone should be enlightening. Following the careers of Senators Proxmire and Mondale with respect to the space program should also shed light on the subject.

    Dick: And why do we need like 20 years of planning to make it back.

    Because going to the Moon is hard. We have to build the infrastructure necessary to build the machines to take us there, with a whole lot less money and political will than we had the first time we went.

    Consider the things you need to build a Saturn V and look around. Not only do we not have the tools to build a Saturn V — we don’t even have the tools to build the tools to build a Saturn V.

    Honestly, we probably wouldn’t be going back if NASA hadn’t received a Presidential order to do so. America is much more apathetic about the idea right now than it was a few decades ago.

    Dick: Do a little research also into which admin was in charge of the executive branch at the time we made it to the moon manned.

    “I believe we went to the Moon” is not the same thing as “I believe that the government tells me the truth”. First of all, it wasn’t just the government that told us that we went; even individuals with their home radio equipment were able to follow Apollo to the Moon. Second, there’s a lot of room between “the government does not tell us the truth” and “everything the government says is a lie”.

    Do a little research yourself into the non-governmental entities that congratulated us on our accomplishment based on their own evidence that we made the trip.

    Dick: Have you ever heard the expression why has no one else done it before.

    Yes. And 99.44% of the time, the answer is “Money”.

    Dick: I never once said I am 100% convinced it was faked. I am merely stating there are enough factors there for a scientific mind to question it.

    There is enough room to question anything — but not necessarily enough room for a scientific mind.

    Dick: One alone being that noone else did it. Just like machine guns, satellites, ballistic missles, nukes, etc. every one of these “military” acheivements will be copied by others. Why not that?

    Did 400,000 people collaborate over the course of a decade to make machine guns? Satellites? Nukes? No? How close have other military programs come?

    Of course, the fact that NASA is a civilian agency makes this a false analogy from the start, but you really need to consider the colossal effort necessary to make landing on the Moon a possibility.

    How many countries have built Great Walls? How many countries have built Giza-size pyramids (or Giza-size funerary monuments of any kind)? Does the fact that these things are not ubiquitous imply anything about the intelligence of the people who did or the intelligence of the people who did not? I sincerely hope you wouldn’t think so, and I hope you can see why we wouldn’t think so.

    Dick: And if you say it cant be done see the Chinese argument.

    How many people have the Chinese launched in the past five years again?

    Okay. And how does that compare to how many people were launched in the first five years of our manned space program? (Here’s a hint: in the first five years, we had completed the Mercury and Gemini programs; the Mercury program alone launched twice the number of people of the entire Chinese manned space program so far.)

    What does that tell you about the emphasis on speedy progress in both cases?

    Dick: We are not the only country with smart people. There are many others.

    No one has claimed that we are. But how many countries have even come close to matching the funding or manpower of our space program during the race to the Moon?

    Regrettably, intelligence is not the only prerequisite for getting people to the lunar surface and back. Anyone who’s actually worked as an engineer to build something new in order to solve a previously unsolved problem understands that intimately.

    Your flippant assumption that a successful lunar program implies that a lunar program is easy is a grave insult to the hundreds of thousands of people who worked hard to make it happen.

  113. Shoeshine – I didn’t even think of that! Good one!

    I love Mythbusters, and I cannot wait to watch this one!

  114. Calli Arcale

    The N1 (their moon rocket) development was under the development of Sergei Korolev, their “chief designer” and the direct analog of Wernher von Braun on the Apollo program. More than anyone else he was responsible for all of the initial Soviet successes in space, from Sputnik through the early manned missions.

    He went into the hospital for minor surgery in 1966 and basically was killed on the operating table by an incompetent doctor. The actual cause is variously reported as a heart attack, cancer or hemorrioids (really! Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Korolev

    There’s even more to it than that.

    Korolev had actually been in poor health for many years; it was almost a miracle that he survived Stalin’s purges at all. He had been sent to the worst of the gulags, courtesy of Stalin’s paranoia and a backstabbing colleague who, to be fair, was mainly trying to make sure he didn’t get sent to the gulag himself. He did hard labor in a salt mine (IIRC), a job which killed most of the workers in under six months. When he was rescued by a knowledgeable aerospace expert (who arranged for Korolev’s slave labor sentence to be relocated from the gulag to an aerospace design bureau), he had chronic lung problems. The Wikipedia article says that he was released after a few months in the gulag, but this is misleading — he was never at liberty. Right up until his dying day, he officially did not exist, and was still serving his sentence of forced labor. He was just fortunate that someone had realized that his intellectual labor was a lot more valuable than his physical labor.

    There are other reasons why the N1 failed, including time wasted on the back-and-forth between the N1 and the UR-500 (which eventually became Proton), and the bickering between competing bureaus and the competing political factions who sponsored them. The Nedelin Catastrophe was also a factor — over a hundred of Russia’s best and brightest rocket engineers and technicians were killed in the explosion of the first R-16 ICBM. The delays in Soyuz were yet another factor. Had Soyuz 1 not been sent up unready, resulting in the highly public death of a cosmonaut, perhaps the spacecraft would’ve been ready earlier. So much time was wasted early on that everything got pushed far too close the deadlines, and so unready technologies got pressed into service. Even if Korolev had survived to 1969, and seen the N-1 through all the way, it may not have made a difference in the end. After all, even if the N-1 test flights had succeeded, they did not yet have the L-3 lunar complex ready. At best, they could’ve managed a lunar swing-round flight aboard a Proton. And those were blowing up a lot too; no one was ready to risk humans aboard one.

    The Russians could’ve beaten us, if they’d been more focused. That was their biggest problem.

  115. MattFunke

    Calli Arcale: The Russians could’ve beaten us, if they’d been more focused. That was their biggest problem.

    Yeah. Considering the emphasis on political muscle-flexing, one of the weirdest things about the race to the Moon is that the Americans took a one-official-group-only approach, and the Soviets took an approach that looked a lot more like competition. It’s just odd, considering the different economic ideologies.

    I wonder if this has lessons for us as we sit on the cusp of privatized space travel.

  116. Captain Swoop

    NASA put work out to contractors, much the same thing.

  117. Dick

    What I am saying is that it is 100% impossible to prove that we made it manned vs unmanned.

    Maybe we can prove we made it unmanned(as in we made it there). But to state there is scientific evidence to prove we made it there manned vs unmmanned is just complete utter bs.

    If they can make it there unmanned. they can fake that a man was in the rockets that made it there. End of story.

    And until other countries start making it there, it will make skeptics, like myself, wonder about why others cant do it yet.

    I’m not saying it was easy. I never said it was easy. I’m just saying the majority of military know how gets leaked to other countries at some point. Thats why our technologies were so close to the Russians and visa versa in many ways.

    And to think that NASA was started as and still is a complete civilian program is naive at best.

    It operates under the umbrella of a civilan program. But dont fool yourself this collosal amount of money spent in space was part of our arms race.

    Why else did we decide to put satelites up in space, just so that we can get 200 channels of reality tv.

  118. Regarding the flag: It was starched and had a spring-steel wire running along the top edge to hold it up. The starch gave it a somewhat rumpled appearance but gave it added rigidity. There’s naturally no air on the Moon to make it flutter; the appearance of some atmospheric drag on the flag while it was being set up is from the wire vibrating. It stops as soon as the wire stabilizes, and never moves again even as astronauts hop nearby (activity that would have caused it to flutter in an atmosphere).

    Regarding the regolith holding a footprint: Until the landing took place, nobody really knew what the lunar surface would be like. Some were worried that the dust would completely swallow the landing module; others that the surface would be too hard even for the module’s shock-absorbers. Of course, the large feet on the lander acted as snowshoes, distributing the weight over as large an area as possible. The famous photograph of the footprint served not only as an historical record, but also showed the flour-like consistency of the regolith at the landing site. Incidentally, that dust is the color of asphalt and sticks to everything! Lunar rovers break down quickly because their moving parts get clogged with Moon grit.

    Some said they wanted to see what an explosion on the Moon looked like. (This may have been a joking reference to the TV show, which I have never seen; I don’t have cable TV.) Explosions can be caused by different things, yielding different effects — but there are several differences one can count on between a lunar and a terrestrial explosion. A lunar explosion would lack flames. (Combustible gases may combust, but only as long as they have sufficient density. Once they dissipate — which happens pretty darn fast in a vacuum — the lights go out. A shower of sparks would resemble a halo-shaped flash. The glowing clouds of nebulae result from intense heat — but nebulae are also much, much larger than anything that might blow up on the Moon. Those clouds have enough mass even as they expand that they have a measurable gravitational field that holds them together, somewhat. (The layers of debris in the expanding clouds generate a lot of friction, too.) A lunar explosion would also lack a classic mushroom cloud, which forms as air is blasted away, then rushes in to fill the vacuum, thus deforming the cloud. The debris cloud from a lunar explosion would reach much higher than it would on Earth (no atmosphere and only 1/6 the gravity to hold it back) and would be shaped like a topknot of baby hair. Depending on the size and force of the blast, some of it may escape the Moon’s gravity and dissipate into outer space; bits that are too heavy or just weren’t tossed high enough would fall back down to the surface. Some parts might hang suspended some distance from the surface, forming a dust cloud; but this would ultimately disintegrate over time (The rings around the four outer planets will eventually disintegrate for the same reasons. Don’t worry; Saturn will still have her rings for a very long time!). The blast would form a crater; we can see lots of those. Dust tossed up a short distance from the blast site would appear to our eyes to fall down unnaturally fast, despite the low gravity — dust on Earth falls slowly because of the density of the atmosphere. And of course, an explosion on the Moon would be completely silent. Any noise you might hear, should you be close enough to see the event, would be either radio interference from the EMP, or the result of the shock wave and debris hitting your space suit or shelter. If you were close enough, you could be blown over, and the sound (carried by the air inside your suit) would probably resemble that of a sheet of plywood smacking you (it would feel a lot like that too). The shock wave would travel pretty far through the ground (almost as far as it would on Earth), but not very far through the vacuum. A shock wave in an atmosphere transfers its energy to that atmosphere; this is how hurricanes and tsunami build their strength. In a vacuum, the shock wave can only be transferred to any solid objects that might be close enough; other than that, it only has its own energy and that of the debris ring to play with.

    I hope that I answered a few questions, and didn’t spoil too much of the upcoming program!

  119. Mr. Random

    Dick, what exactly are your scientific qualifications? You said you were a scientist.

  120. Peter B

    Dick said: “What I am saying is that it is 100% impossible to prove that we made it manned vs unmanned.”

    I don’t think anyone is saying there’s 100% proof that men have walked on the Moon. But the preponderance of evidence is so large that it’s reasonable to accept.

    “Maybe we can prove we made it unmanned(as in we made it there). But to state there is scientific evidence to prove we made it there manned vs unmmanned is just complete utter bs. If they can make it there unmanned. they can fake that a man was in the rockets that made it there. End of story.”

    Absolutely wrong. There are three main pieces of evidence. Firstly, the rock samples collected amount to too much, are too well documented, and contain too many core samples, to have been collected by robots. Secondly, the ground stations (including one here in Australia and one in Spain) received voice and other telemetry from *the Moon* and from cis-lunar space with the appropriate Doppler shifts, which can’t be faked by “astronots” on Earth or by relay satellites. Thirdly, the actions of the astronauts in the video record are entirely consistent with being in a one-sixth G vacuum in a large open space, which can’t be faked on the Earth. To claim Apollo was faked, you *have* to explain how these aspects were faked.

    “And until other countries start making it there, it will make skeptics, like myself, wonder about why others cant do it yet.”

    Why doesn’t the cost of such a project carry any weight with you? Apollo cost about US$25 billion in 1960s money, or about US$175 billion today. How many countries have this sort of money?

    “I’m not saying it was easy. I never said it was easy. I’m just saying the majority of military know how gets leaked to other countries at some point. Thats why our technologies were so close to the Russians and visa versa in many ways.”

    To be fair, you said: “…if it was so freakin easy for us to get there almost 40 years ago with our powerful computers no better than a Timex Sinclair why havent we gone back.” And yes, the Soviets had spies in NASA who passed on information about Apollo hardware, though that doesn’t seem to have greatly influenced the Soviets. But this also means that if the Americans had faked Apollo, the Soviets would almost certainly have known, in which case you have to explain why the Soviets didn’t show the evidence.

    “And to think that NASA was started as and still is a complete civilian program is naive at best.”

    Irrelevant to faking Apollo.

    “It operates under the umbrella of a civilan program. But dont fool yourself this collosal amount of money spent in space was part of our arms race.”

    Not the arms race so much as propagand. The Cold War had many aspects, of which the military side was only one. Propaganda was another, and the space race more properly belongs there.

    “Why else did we decide to put satelites up in space, just so that we can get 200 channels of reality tv.”

    Satellites are launched for all sorts of reasons: meteorology, remote sensing, oceanography, navigation, communications, even the exploration of space. Not every satellite is for military or entertainment purposes.

  121. Dick says: “And to think that NASA was started as and still is a complete civilian program is naive at best. It operates under the umbrella of a civilian program. But don’t fool yourself this colossal amount of money spent in space was part of our arms race.”

    Like most conspiracy theorists you think you’ve uncovered a massive cover-up where none exists.

    I don’t think that anyone ever thought that NASA never did military research. It is, after all, the successor to the NACA, which was a civilian agency set up to do aerodynamic research and push back the envelope of aircraft design (of which the military is always the earliest adopter).

    The big separator is that NASA doesn’t do direct weapons system development. Here’s an example. A good friend of my is the chief aero engineer at NASA Dryden. When I first met him (early ’90s) he was working on HARV, the High Alpha Research Vehicle. This was an F-18 outfitted with thrust vectoring paddles in the exhaust to allow the plane to fly at 40, 50 and 60 degrees (and more) in pitch from the direction of travel, well past the point where the wings stall. NASA was chosen to do this since they know how to do research. They used an F-18 because the customer sponsoring the research was the Pentagon. The point was to learn how to rotate an airplane to extreme angles to release ordinance without actually flying in that direction, which would subject the pilot to huge g-forces.

    Once the program was finished, though, the research was turned over to the military and MacAir (who makes the F-18) for development of the actual military application. A lot of that research went into the F-22.

    – Jack

  122. Greg B

    Dick, every time you open your mouth you stick your foot in it. The first rule of being stuck in a hole is to STOP DIGGING!

    Humans walked on the moon. It is a FACT. We have video graphic, photographic, and PHYSICAL evidence. It does not matter if you “believe” it or not, it happened. The Russians sent landers and ROVERS to the moon. The United States send landers, and HUMANS, and HUMANS DRIVING ROVERS to the moon. We have video AND photographic AND physical evidence of that. Just because it happened before you were born does not mean its questionable.

    I would invite you to visit NASA’s Johnson Space Center, on NASA Road 1 in Clear Lake, TX, halfway between Houston and Galveston, just a couple of miles from IH-45, where I lived for almost 20 years. If you cannot fathom that NASA did indeed travel to to moon after following the guided or UNGUIDED civilian tour, let me know. I would be happy to help you go behind the scenes where most people don’t get to go, and you will see for yourself how stupid you actually sound.

    Or, you can stay where you are, and live in your little fantasy world, where only what you read on somebody’s Myspace page is your reality.

    BA – Keep on rockin!

  123. Nicholas Dollak says “Until the landing took place, nobody really knew what the lunar surface would be like.”

    That’s true, but it wasn’t the Apollo landings that told them that. The Surveyor spacecraft (first landing 1966) did a “cut and bounce” landing, just like the LM. Some of them were able to photograph their own footprints made by the bounces. The sampler arms were also able to get good data on the consistency of the soil.

    – Jack

  124. Peter B says: “the ground stations (including one here in Australia and one in Spain) received voice and other telemetry from *the Moon* and from cis-lunar space with the appropriate Doppler shifts, which can’t be faked by “astronots” on Earth or by relay satellites.”

    Even more than that, it was other tracking stations all over the Earth (most notably in the Soviet Union) who also received the signals and verified they were coming from the moon. That held much more weight than the stations that were actually part of the program (who, of course, would have just been instructed to lie about it).

    – Jack

  125. Aquaria

    “Only us. No other country.”

    Wow. The not-too-bright in this is astounding.

    I suppose Japan just made up that HD footage of an earthrise and earthset over the moon’s horizon from their lunar-orbiting probe, Kaguya. You know, the one that’s laying the groundwork for them to take a shot at a manned lunar landing in 2020. And the Chinese have similar plans. So does India. And the European Space Agency. They’re finding the money to do it, since America has dropped the ball. They don’t trust us to get it done again (can’t blame them). And, anyway, why let us reap all the benefits of space exploration? My guess is that ESA and Japan, at least, WILL put people on the moon within the next 15-20 years. And I have the feeling a lot of Americans will be HOWLING when they see a Japanese flag on the Moon, especially if they manage to get there before the US does again. But hey, more power to those other countries, for supporting science and technology over ignorance and chest-thumping hubris.

    Regardless, I doubt the hoaxers will believe, no matter how many countries make successful human landings on the moon. Nothing will satisfy their certainty that it just can’t be done, or that it’s some evil government plot to steal money from them, or some masked plot to develop technology for the military (as if the US has EVER had a problem funding and making things that go boom for the war machine).

    Maybe the only way to convince the hoaxers a landing is real is to send them all there. One way. /sarcasm off

    Hey, Greg–where were you when I visited Johnson? I would have loved to have gone “behind the scenes” there!

    :::sulking in corner now at getting the rube tour:::

  126. MattFunke

    Captain Swoop: NASA put work out to contractors, much the same thing.

    And the Soviet Union used government-directed, privately-owned factories to manufacture goods for the people.

    There are enormous differences between a single government bureau administrating a single effort and multiple government bureaus in competition with one another, each with different strategies and goals. It’s not “much the same thing” at all.

    I don’t know whether the different approaches to the hugely difficult problem of space travel has anything to teach us or not as we attempt to privatize it, but I do think it’s worth discussing.

    Dick: What I am saying is that it is 100% impossible to prove that we made it manned vs unmanned.

    And as I pointed out, you can doubt anything if you really want to. That doesn’t imply that you’re being “scientific” about it, though.

    Dick: But to state there is scientific evidence to prove we made it there manned vs unmmanned is just complete utter bs.

    Wave your hands a little faster; I can almost feel a breeze.

    What about the people who followed Apollo to the Moon using their privately-owned radio equipment?

    What about the fact that the lunar samples not only fit a coherent geologic picture of the landing sites, and not only fit their descriptions for scientists who request new samples now, and not only are made up of stuff that would be darned hard to fake here on Earth, but also fit the data we’ve gotten about the Moon in the nearly forty years we’ve had to study the Moon since Apollo? If someone discovered that some detail, no matter how small, that they learned about the Moon was contradicted by the Apollo reports, don’t you think they’d scream bloody murder? How is it that the people who supposedly faked the whole thing managed to get every detail right, even the ones we hadn’t learned about yet?

    Dick: If they can make it there unmanned. they can fake that a man was in the rockets that made it there. End of story.

    It’s not “End of story” until you can demonstrate how. Your statement is akin to “If they can build a wall around a room, they can fake the building of a Great Wall”. It ignores so much about the enormity of the enterprise that it’s hard to know where to begin.

    Dick: And until other countries start making it there, it will make skeptics, like myself, wonder about why others cant do it yet.

    Have you ever wanted to do something that you couldn’t afford, even though Bill Gates certainly could have? Have you ever wanted to finish a project, but found that you simply didn’t have the resources to see it through to completion? Have you ever had to make a decision to do one thing and not another because you couldn’t do both?

    Is your life so empty of trying new things that you’ve never had to face the cold realities of limited money and manpower? Why are these explanations insufficient for you?

    Dick: I’m not saying it was easy. I never said it was easy.

    Your words: if it was so frickin easy…

    If you didn’t say it was easy, who did? Who are you saying is maintaining that a successful lunar program is easy?

    Dick: I’m just saying the majority of military know how gets leaked to other countries at some point.

    Without a doubt. But as I also pointed out, intelligence alone is not enough to get you to the Moon’s surface and back.

    To go back to your analogy, knowing how to build a nuke is not enough to have nukes. You also need to create the infrastructure required to gather the right materials, refine them, and tool them until they make a weapon.

    Now, exactly how NASA did what it did is largely public record. Can you show me where someone else built the right infrastructure and found out that it was completely insufficient to even reach for the Moon?

    Dick: And to think that NASA was started as and still is a complete civilian program is naive at best.

    There’s a lot of room between “NASA is a military agency” and “NASA has done no work at all for the Department of Defense”.

    You’re the one who put the word “complete” in there. Not anyone else in here.

    Dick: But dont fool yourself this collosal amount of money spent in space was part of our arms race.

    Who’s fooling himself? Didn’t I mention that this was “muscle-flexing” earlier?

    Of course the undercurrent of the Moon race was all about who had the better missiles. Sadly, the development of rocketry has historically been largely steered by war effort. That doesn’t mean the rockets didn’t do what we claim they did.

    Dick: Why else did we decide to put satelites up in space, just so that we can get 200 channels of reality tv.

    You get 200 channels of reality TV? Weird.

    Can you demonstrate that orbital satellites are sufficient to fake an Apollo-like signal from the Moon? How would it be done?

  127. Dick writes:

    [[Dont most of the religions start out as a lies? Or are they all correct?]]

    The conspiracy theory of religions is just as dumb as the conspiracy theory of the Moon Hoax, and for the same reasons.

    People all through history have had contact with the supernatural, or (if you’re a materialist) have had some kind of experience that could be interpreted that way. Religions are the attempts various cultures have made to fit those experiences into some kind of logical framework.

    Of course they’re not all correct. They have varying degrees of correctness. I’m a Christian because I think Christianity is the most accurate. But I don’t have to believe that Christianity is 100% correct and all other religions are 100% wrong. I can be more charitable than a militant atheist, who must believe that all religions are 100% wrong.

  128. One of the main reason the Moan Hoaxers are wrong is simply that we know, from physics, that we can travel from the Earth to the Moon and back. The Hoaxers are assuming that it’s so daunting a prospect that it can’t be done. But if you have the rocket equation and some good physical chemistry, celestial mechanics, and engineering, you’re pretty much in. I don’t think you even need tensor math to get to the Moon, I believe you can do it using nothing harder than vector analysis and Newtonian mechanics.

    The US spent $25 billion pre-Burns-inflation dollars to get to the Moon. That would be like, what, $300 billion nowadays? Give me $300 billion and one decade to work with, and I’ll get to the Moon myself! (Or, more likely, send someone else, since I’m kind of a cripple.)

  129. As for the Soviets not doing it as well — didn’t their big booster blow up on the pad in ’68 or ’69? That blew a big part of their space capital right there. At that point they very logically gave up, realizing we’d get there first, so there was no good reason to try any more. If Stalin had still been running things they would have still tried, but you had Brezhnev in command, and while he was almost as evil as Stalin, he was a darn sight less crazy.

  130. APB

    lol…

    Sorry mates, But we did go to the moon…

    why have we not been back since? we have.. we have been going back ever since.. just wait until you find out about all thats been going on up there. Believe me or do not…. but I promise you this.

    Sure, the government is a bunch of crooked, fascist , lying scumbags…
    No doubt.
    But you need to ask yourselves what exactly are the lies about on this topic…. actually getting there?? (which is actually not that difficult).

    or about not having been back for 40+ years?

    I promise on everything.. (and I know that does not mean much in an online forum, as anyone could say that)..
    if you could see what is on the opposite side of that Moon…. I would bet my life savings that half of you would either pass out or die on the spot, from shock.

    How will you see it you ask? China, my friends, China. Wait until you see what they’ve got for us!! 😉
    Ad Astra Per Aspera!!
    Blessings

  131. APB

    oops, sorry.. I forgot…

    If you do some searching… You will find actual reports of our own astronauts describing what they have seen on the opposite side. (the dark side of the moon for you stoners or star wars dudes.) lol
    and not just one astronaut either.

    We are all in for some amazing surprises very soon folks.

  132. Peter B

    G’day APB

    What sort of evidence do you have for your claim about what’s on the far side of the Moon? And how do you know?

    Cheers

  133. Just Al

    Peter B said: What sort of evidence do you have for your claim about what’s on the far side of the Moon? And how do you know?

    Shhh! He’s just following my suggestion above (way above)about creating a bigger conspiracy, and seeing if Dick bites.

    [Mr BA, that was NOT CUSSING! It’s a proper sentence! Don’t delete me!]

  134. Greg in Austin

    APB, I’ll take your bet. You said, “if you could see what is on the opposite side of that Moon…. I would bet my life savings that half of you would either pass out or die on the spot, from shock.”

    I’ll get 4 people together, including myself. We will all look at the photos, films, and recent digital images and videos of the FAR SIDE of the Earth’s moon, taken from American, Russian, Chinese and Japanese sources. If two of us do not pass out or die on the spot from shock, you can hand over your life savings (if you even have any.)

    Or were you talking about some other moon that we haven’t already seen the far side of? Please cite the sources for the information you claim to have seen. How soon is, “very soon”? Please give at least one shred of scientific evidence, otherwise I will never believe you, and will pretty much shrug you off as a wacko.

  135. APB

    Greg, Like I said, believe me or don’t. it doesn’t really matter. Shrug me off as a wacko if you will, really.. thats not my problem.

    everyone will know soon enough. and no.. its not part of some ‘bigger conspiracy’. lol. Quit making things what they are not. and quit taking away from things that are.

    The truth is the truth.
    and ignorance really is not bliss. 😉

    Al.. your a funny guy.

    Peace

  136. Celtic_Evolution

    Geez, APB… you can do better than THAT.

    We’ve had pictures of the far side of the moon since the late 50’s for cripes sake. See for yourself.

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/mission_page/EM_Luna_3_page1.html

    And those are just the first grainy gems we gut from Luna3.

    Here’s a real good one from Apollo16…

    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/9810/farside_apollo16_big.gif

    Looking… looking… nope… I’m afraid it looks pretty moon-like to me. Am I missing something APB?

  137. Celtic_Evolution

    Seriously APB… I’ve done my part and supplied with you with images you could have easily found yourself…

    Now I ask you to provide anything… ANYTHING that even serves as one shred of evidence to support your claim. Anything at all. Can you do that? Or are you just gonna give me the “believe me or don’t” jargon?

  138. APB

    ^ from some of the most well known astronauts themselves.

    and yes, I have seen all of those before, thanks man,
    Peace

  139. APB

    and do you really think the pictures shown to the public are not going to be doctored by the agancy taking and supplying the pics??
    c’mon.

  140. APB

    . In 1994, the US Navy sent a satellite called Clementine to the moon to image it for two months. During that time, the satellite took 1.8 million images. Out of those images, 170,000 images were made available to the public. The rest were classified. Classified moon craters?”

    riiight.

  141. Dorkus

    You really believe that crap? I have heard numerous interviews with the Apollo crews…and not one has ever mentioned a secret alien base on the dark side of the moon.

  142. Celtic_Evolution

    @ APB

    Of for the love of… THAT’S your source? SERIOUSLY? So am I to believe that you believe every story listed in that repository of brain-waste?

    That being the case… to spend even one more minute arguing with someone of that level of intelligence (read: gullability) would be an exercise in futility. I’d frankly rather take a dip in a vat of acid.

    So thanks, APB, but no thinks… not interested in playing.

    Oh… and, um..

    Peace

  143. APB

    lol. wow

    you asked for one measly source so i grabbed that.
    just like you grabbed some crappy sources. :)

    some of you are just amazing. lol
    Peace

  144. Mark

    Celtic de-evolution~
    You really ought to get an education before you go speaking to others like that. what are you, a 15 year old in mommys basement on her computer?
    Keep talking, your brilliant.

  145. APB says: “In 1994, the US Navy sent a satellite called Clementine to the moon to image it for two months. During that time, the satellite took 1.8 million images. Out of those images, 170,000 images were made available to the public. The rest were classified. Classified moon craters?”

    Clementine was not a Navy program. It was DoD. The vehicle was built by the Navy and launched by the Air Force. It was the first (and so far only) DoD mission to leave Earth orbit (it was also the first, and so far only, space launch that I was able to watch in person).

    Even though there was a science mission involved, it was mostly a test bed for the “sensor suite” on board. This had been developed by Lawrence Livermore National Lab (about two miles from my house) and was a considerable breakthrough in reducing sensor size and weight while increasing resolution.

    The images that you are suspicious of were classified not because of what they showed, but because of how well they showed it. They didn’t want the “bad guys” to know the extent of our capabilities.

    – Jack

  146. Greg in Austin

    APB,

    I don’t believe you, and here’s why: You make an outrageous claim with no evidence, you make an unintelligent wager based on that claim, and when you do attempt to provide some “facts” they turn out to be uninformed and uneducated hogwash that was debunked years ago, by hundreds of people, even on this very website.

    So please, keep digging your hole. Maybe Dick has a shovel you can borrow.

    Mark, before you start berating anyone else for their supposed lack of education, perhaps you should consider rewriting your own comments to at least an 8th grade grammar level.

    Besides, EVERYONE knows that the only thing on the moon is a theme park. 8)

  147. Celtic_Evolution

    Ouch!

    Touche Mark… well played. May take a while to recover.

    “Your brilliant.”

    My brilliant… what? ANything else to say about my edumacation?

    Do you have anything useful to add to this conversation or are you just interested in drive-by stupidity?

    @ APB

    lol all you want… I refuse to even comment on that “source”. Not worth my, your, or anyone else’s time. Moving on.

  148. Oh, and note, please, that the “dark side of the Moon” is not the same as the “far side of the Moon.” The far side more or less stays put; the dark side rotates all the way around every 27.3 days or so (sidereal).

  149. Forget the moon landings! The moon itself is a fake. It’s a holographic projection created by a massive US Military installation on the South Pole. This base started operation in 1981, and historical documents and photographs were doctored — even as far back as the ancient egyptians — to include mentions of it at that time. Everyone over the age of 26 was brainwashed by agents of the Secret World Government to believe not only that the moon actually exists, but that the US landed men on it in the 1960s.

  150. The moon landing hoax is one of the dumbest conspiracy hypotheses of all time. It’s less credible than any hypothesis about the death of JFK or the sinking of the Titanic. It’s less realistic than any hypothesis about the events of September 11, 2001. It’s less conceivable than any claims about the marvels of the ancient Atlantean civilization. If you believe this one, you seriously need to consider getting your head checked. Seriously, I’m more likely to believe the “Son of a Gun” myth than this one.

    I think one of the most interesting things about the Apollo program was everything that went wrong. Not just the big disasters, like the capsule fires or Apollo 13. It’s the little details. Like Neil Armstrong bungling his line.

    Or — and this one’s my favorite — the overloading of Apollo 11’s LEM guidance computer. You can hear the simpleminded (if brilliantly designed and essential — keep that in mind) contraption’s pathetic whining in the audio from the landing. “beep!…beep!” Each beep is the announcement by the guidance computer of a “1202” error — that it has too much work on its hands and that some low-priority job has been dropped from the task queue.

    Amazingly, this sound has infiltrated itself deep into the american culture of spaceflight, so that you’ll frequently hear it asssociated in the media with spaceships and satellites. Few people even know what they’re hearing.

  151. Check out some of Richard C Hoaglands research.. See interview w/ Richard on http://www.projectcamelot.org – Moon landings are probably not fake, but there may very well be a hell of a lot more to them and space exploration in general, than what is currently believed by the pooblic.

  152. Peter B

    G’day Tangerine

    Sadly, Richard Hoagland appears to have over-analysed the evidence, as much as Apollo Hoax Believers have under-analysed it.

  153. blf

    The moon itself is a fake. It’s a holographic projection created by a massive US Military installation on the South Pole. This base started operation in 1981, and historical documents and photographs were doctored…

    The lie about doctoring old photographs is propaganda spread by those who think there is really is a moon. (Just like the absurd claim the moon has anything to do with the tides. Obvious rubbish.) Doctoring photographs and paintings and stories and so on is clearly too massive an effort, even the Super Duper Ninjas who implement Teh Lizard’s plans.

    In reality, this was the original purpose of Stonehenge. The fake moon has been projected for thousands of years. It’s the original holographic projector that’s still in use (those druids built things to last), but it’s been moved around over the millennia. For a while it was on Easter Island (those stone heads were an attempt to recreate Stonehenge), taken there by the last fleet to sail from Atlantis just before The Great Flood.

    Solar eclipses are scheduled so they can change the battery.

  154. Forrest

    I wonder if this will ever be aired. It would be interesting to find out what they prove or disprove. After seeing the air date change to TBA, I wonder just how much was a hoax!

  155. PAt

    If you believe it was a hoax, calculate how long it took to get to the moon with the technologies of the time. If we got there in less time than the average or the calculated times of light years, etc. Then you might have a strong case for it being a hoax. I don’t doubt lies that government and its institutions (because NASA is a government institution) will tell people to pacify them. We see today with the war…this type of media sanitation and public cover up is something for the 21st century. America is built on lies and blemish free history — moon hoax would not be surprising.

  156. Peter M

    PAt, what on earth are you on?
    Are you saying you can just decide for yourself that Apollo was a hoax by just calculating the time it should take to get to the moon?
    Have you any idea of how long it did take? Do you know anything about the technology? the hardware, propulsion systems, guidance systems, science, navigation, celestial mechanics, astronomy? Do you actually know anything, anything at all?
    Why mention lightyears by the way? Is that an astronomical term you thought you would just throw in there?
    What do you know?
    You tell me something to pacify me!

  157. CESDewar

    The belief that the moon landings were faked is the tip of an iceberg of a much larger philosophical problem: How do we *know* that certain things are true? And as scientists we have to accept the fact that *nothing* is certain – there are only levels of probability – at some level of probability we accept things as “true”. Quantum theory suggests a measurable probability that I might actually materialize on the moon at some point in the future – but the probability is so low that we don’t waste any energy on seriously discussing that probability.

    Few of us are actually in a position to witness things with our own eyes, so we depend on the opinions of others and facts that we can verify ourselves. But in many cases, we aren’t in a position to verify the facts either. How many people actually know how an internal combustion engine works? How many people know the intensity of the Van Allen belts and the physiological affects of that leve of radiation? How many people know enough about celestial mechanics to know if it’s even reasonable for a rocket to reach the moon?

    My brother (a respected scientist) enjoys asking people why they are certain that North Korea exists. After all, have you ever been there? Yes, you’ve seen a map that identifies a place as North Korea, you’ve read about it in books, but is that “proof”? And even if you have been there, are you really *sure* you were there? You got into this metal tube, it whirled around in the clouds and landed at an airport that had a big sign saying “North Korea Airport” – but maybe you landed somewhere else and someone just made up a sign and got a bunch of Asian-looking actors to convince you it was North Korea.

    The answer is that we frequently depend on a complex Network of Trust to arrive at our own opinions as to what is True. That’s why trying to provide scientific facts to debunk the faked-lunar-landing myth is not likely to be successful. If those people *had* a Trust network that included people with scientific knowledge, they would have arrived at the correct conclusion in the first place. The real issue is that *their* network of trust excludes people with good scientific backgrounds and is dependent more on the paranoia, cynicism and enjoyment of contrariness that surrounds such conspiracy theories.

    The media contributes to the feeding frenzy too. If a fourth-rate scientist declare their support for String Theory, is anyone going to notice? But if they declare that Darwin was completely wrong and advance an alternate and even ludicrous theory, then suddenly they find another *network* of trust that embraces them, and the media considers it newsworthy enough to thrust a “scientist”, other-wise doomed to oblivion, into the spotlight. I think more than a few scientists with dubious credentials got enlisted into the ID movement on that basis.

    What we really need to do is to teach young people the real meaning of the scientific method, so they don’t grow up to be people who ask if you “believe” in evolution as if scientific theories get adopted on the basis of belief rather than accepted on the basis of the scientific method and the network of trust that involves scientists. It’s one of the reasons why it is so vitally important for scientists to constantly self-validate and ensure the integrity and ethics of their efforts – if that breaks down, then so does our network of trust.

    Then again you may not choose to believe any of this either…

  158. obsidianpunk

    Are they ever going to air this episode????????!!!!!?????

    What’s the delay?

  159. rhome

    The American people paid about $19,408,134,000. For the Apollo program. Six of the missions — Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 — achieved this goal. Leaving behind 6 LM Lunar Descent stage modules Diameter: 4.2 m (13.8 ft) Landing gear diameter: 9.4 m (30.8 ft) and 3 Lunar Roving Vehicle Apollo 15,16,17 The frame was 10 feet (3 m) long with a wheelbase of 7.5 feet (2.3 m).

    Many of us have now seen the latest phoenix mission images acquired from the MRO’s HiRISE camera.

    http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/phoenix-hardware.php

    http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/images…2485_cut_a.jpg

    http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/images…2485_cut_e.jpg

    We clearly have the technology to acquire images of the numerous pieces of hardware left behind at the lunar mission landing sites. There are currently orbiters from Japan, China, and one soon from India. The USA should have one, we could easily afford a high-resolution image mission of the Moon. This would put to rest nearly forty years of questions about the lunar missions.

  160. zeroKnots

    “America is built on lies and blemish free history — moon hoax would not be surprising.”
    -PAt, the world’s ultimate judge of reason and decency… if from a safe distance. :)

    Just have too google up “moon landing hoax” every so often to laugh at the weirdo’s. Never a dissapointment.
    Ok ok.. engage, but not as if to dignify the loons.

    So moonlanding hoaxoids don’t have a problem with shuttle missions, space stations, and throw in various mars robots, probes beyond the friggin solar system etc.

    At what exact point then did we stop hoaxing and start going there?

  161. Toydoctor

    Today, (07/18/08), NBC Nightly news presented pictures sent from Deep Space Probe some 31 million miles out of the rarely seen “dark side of the moon.” The physical size difference of the earth and the moon was astonishing. Seeing these pictures makes me think, why does the picture of the earth from the moon’s surface appear to be the same size as what we see the moon to be from the earth’s surface? I also found several pictures from 3.9 million miles out and had the same feeling of wonder. Of course, someone will come up with some absurd answer to this question and many people will try to believe it because they fear that if the government or secret government is capable of such a hoax as JFK, landing on the moon, 911, the true native Americans are evil heathens….etc, that all our lives are in danger to keep the secret. How much money is funded into all these BS acts that we pay for. I’m tired of it and so are many many more. What to do…..

  162. Toydoctor

    Hey zeroKnots, no one is disputing missions in space. In fact, I have seen and heard in the hoax films talking of the missions actually taking place only the Apollo Missions never left earth’s orbit. The problem we all have the the amount of money that keeps being dumped into these projects especially if the project is a scam. If it is true that we cannot penetrate the Van Allen Radiation Belts with humans aboard, how do we expect to make it to mars? And again, how much money will we spend on this hoax? And don’t forget, this is money out of your pocket as well as my own. I am sure a lot of people want to hear this, too, if we are Christians as most of the politicians claim to be, why are we not plucking the timber from our own eye before we pick the splinter from our brother’s eye?

  163. Toydoctor

    When I was a kid, I used to watch those science programs for kids in the afternoons and Saturday mornings. One neat trick was to stretch a balloon over the mouth of an old jar and put several rubber bands around it to seal it. Next put it in say a small aquarium with a sealable lid. Put a lit candle inside the aquarium and then place the lid over all of it. As the candle burns and the oxygen is consumed, a slight vacuum is created and the surprise is the the balloon will begin to bulge due to the difference in pressures of the sealed jar and the oxygen deprived aquarium. Why are there wrinkles in the fabric of the suits? Seems like the 3 to 4 psi of the suits would be hard to achieve without some sort of ridged enclosure to offer a bit of back pressure. But maybe I am just wrong and overlooked some other facts or designs.

  164. joshua

    I don’t believe that we landed on the moon, especially not in 1969. Just about every possible reason anyone can think of to say “it is a hoax” can easily be proven wrong. However, I’m stuck on one specific issue about this whole thing… How did the rover and the astronauts get off of the moon? Surely not the same way they got off of the earth.

    There is, indeed, only ~1/6th of the gravity on the moon compared to earth. True. That also means that there will only be ~1/6th of the atmosphere on the moon, compared to earth. Think of it from a physics standpoint, the little (highly advanced, aparently) ball that the astronauts were in would need to have carried an aweful lot of fuel with them to create enough upward force (with such little atmosphere) to blast themselves off of the moon, no?

    That is why I think that it is such a hoax, along with a few other reasons. No one I have ever met could actually explain how they’d have gotten off of the moon.

  165. Per Hultqvist

    You have got the physics wrong Joshua. Newton’s third law says that “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, so as long as the engine is “shooting” out gas downwards, an equal an opposite force will lift the lunar landing module. The fact that the atmosphere is thinner is just helping, less resistance to overcome.

    Mythbusters tackling the moan hoax, sooo cool, i have been waiting on this for a long time…

  166. Nebz

    “There is, indeed, only ~1/6th of the gravity on the moon compared to earth. True. That also means that there will only be ~1/6th of the atmosphere on the moon, compared to earth.”

    Joshua, reread what you just typed and tell me how this presents a problem.

    Low gravity and no atmosphere means you need very little energy.

  167. whooter

    “There is, indeed, only ~1/6th of the gravity on the moon compared to earth. True. That also means that there will only be ~1/6th of the atmosphere on the moon, compared to earth.”

    …aaaaand this is where I stopped reading.

  168. Dgarner58

    wow…joshua might want to not post in a thread that requires some level of thought in the future.

    seriously…that boggles my mind.

  169. boogerlyx

    Who started this idea of the moon having atmosphere? The reason why the moon is studded with crates is because it has NO atmosphere – you’ll need air molecules for that. From my understanding, the moon is a vacuum. Atmosphere = Air = Wind = Erosion.

  170. Conrado henriquez

    I like you when you work harder but every thing has a price,especially e friend ship where favors are frequently required. Don’t upset your patrons .

  171. boogerlyx

    Hey, joshua. Just a note, the lunar rovers were only taken on the last few missions. They were built as one-time-use-only vehicles. It was more efficient to bring a new rover every time – thus lunar vehicles are still on the moon.

  172. MAX

    I tested the light and shadows as they did on the show,in a acurate light sumulation 3d programme.
    And you will only get the shadows as the nasa picture shows when the light source is very close to the objects.
    like a studio light.
    The sun is not that much closer to the moon than it is to earth.
    There for the light situation is the same as on earth.
    Let them try recreating the same shadows with sun light and ill be impressed.
    The fact that my mythbusting heroes didnt think of this makes me sad.
    Well they have been wrong before.
    Frozen chickens come to mind.

  173. Toydoctor

    Nasa I am sure spent several years creating the hoax, and Mythbusters they busted the myth of hox in a much shorter time frame. There were several points that added to the idea of a hoax that were not subjected to the MB tests, half covered crosshairs, that famous “C” on the rock, …etc. I didn’t understand the shadows they created and I did not see there light source(s) while the shadow angles were simulated. I lost a lot of respect for the crews on Mythbusters from that show. Funny thing, every show that they test the myth, they sit down and make everything. Why did this show they didn’t have to make anything? Oh yeah, they poured out the dirt and made little piles.

  174. MAX

    i was wrong i tested the light settings wrong.
    I guess the shadows thing is true.
    o well

  175. ancelmo

    QUATRIÈME THÉORIE D’ASTRONOMIE GRACELIANA.
    Auteur – Ancelmo Luiz Graceli.
    Brésilien, enseignant, chercheuse théorique, gradué dans
    philosophie.

    THÉORIE d’ASTRONOMIE de la PROPORTIONNALITÉ d’ORBITES Par la
    ROTATION et VITESSE ÉQUATORIALE.

    Et IRRÉGULARITÉS d’ORBITES et de ROTATION Par la DÉSINTÉGRATION
    d’ÉNERGIE.

    DU PRESQUE RIEN TOUT PEUT APPARAÎTRE – EXCEPTÉ DIEU. DONC c’Est
    l’SEUL ABSOLU.

    Références.

    Le travail se complétera avec.

    1-A théorie de l’univers fluxonário estruturante et cosmofísica
    graceliana.
    2-Teoria d’astronomie graceliana de energeticidade et maser.
    3-Teoria d’astronomie de alternancidade et variance.
    4-Teoria d’astronomie da origine, rotation, éloignement et
    progression.
    5-Teoria d’astronomie de fisicidade, de désintégration et de
    réintégration.
    6-Teoria générale pour l’astronomie et la cosmo.
    7-Teoria da microfísica et da chimique.
    8-Teoria da unité générale.

    CALCULS D’ORBITES PAR LA ROTATION OU VITESSE ÉQUATORIALE.

    SUR la LUNE.

    RELATION ENTRE VITESSE DE TRADUCTION AVEC EC SATELLITE DE JUPITER.

    La Lune deproduire par une astro avec peu d’énergie, dans le cas la
    Terre, elle possède dezessete fois petite vitesse de traduction dont
    EC – satellite de Jupiter, vu que Jupiter possède plus grand
    diamètre dont la Terre. Donc les deux sont presque à la même
    s’éloignent de leurs primaires, dans le cas EC de Jupiter et de la
    Lune de la Terre. Il a aussi d’dese considérer de qu’EC suis un
    satellite plus énergie dont la Lune, même Jupiter en étant plus
    vieux de ce que la terre, donc encore conserve activités tectônicas,
    ces activités déjà ont été observées par téléscopiques.

    EC possède davantage de l’énergie, du maser, l’atmosphère dont la
    Lune deêtre étée produite par une planète – Jupiter – avec
    davantage énergie dont la Terre. Ceci si confirme dans la relation
    entre les dynamiques entre les deux planètes.

    EC aussi possède approximativement le même diamètre de la Lune.

    Diamètre Lune 3470 quilometro. Vitesse de Traduction Lune 1,03
    km/seconde.
    EC 3650 quilometro. Vitesse de Traduction EC 17,4 km/seconde.

    Il éloigne de leurs Primaires – EC – 420.000 kilomètres.
    Lua-384.000 kilomètres.

    Rotation – EC possède une rotation 16,44 fois plus grande do que la
    Lune, ou suis, presque la même différence do que la traduction. Ceci
    confirme tout exposé jusqu’ici qu’à la rotation, comme la traduction
    et l’éloignement sont produits par l’énergie et le maser de l’astro.

    Ici si confirme clairement qui a une relation directe entre les
    dynamiques.

    POUR QUE CONFIRMENT.

    Qu’EC possède une atmosphère 10 fois plus grande de ce que la Lune.
    Par que est confirmé avec la différence de leurs dynamiques.

    EC possède une activité magnétique, une conduction électrique, une
    activité sismique, l’atmosphère, l’activité tectônica dix fois
    plus grande de ce que la lune.
    Ceci a déjà été prouvé par l’expérience. Ce que confirme les
    exposé par la différence dans les dynamiques et orbites.

    EXCENTRICITÉ Et INCLINATION de la LUNE.

    La Lune possède une inclination orbitaire de 5.9 degrés concernant
    l’écliptique, et une excentricité de 0.05 degré, et ceci confirment
    la relation avec la vitesse translacional et rotation, c’est-à-dire,
    peu de dynamique et grande irrégularité dans les inclinations de
    l’orbite et de la rotation, et avec de la grande excentricité.

    Comme a été exposé ci-dessus, la Terre est lui finis planète de
    produire satellite jusqu’à aujourd’hui, donc la Terre a été
    produite par le Soleil quand le même déjà se trouvait dans une
    phase de peu de production d’énergie, voyons que la Lune produit peu
    de maser et aucune activité tectônica, tant qu’EC produis de grande
    activité tectônica. Par qu’EC ai été produite par une planète
    avec beaucoup d’énergie et intense maser, donc c’est très plus grand
    de ce que la Terre, donc que la rotation et la traduction de la Lune
    sont 17 fois moindres dont EC et une excentricité très plus grande,
    et une inclination plus grande de ce que ce d’EC C’est-à-dire, le
    primaire produit l’énergie dans le secondaire qui va produire les
    phénomènes.

    Ainsi, l’inclination et l’excentricité des satellites sont toujours
    proches ou plus grandes des valeurs de leurs primaires.

    Et ici avec la Lune et EC se confirme l’exposé précédemment, que
    combien plus grand énergie et le maser, plus grands seront la
    dynamique, la stabilité et la perfection de circularidade de
    l’orbite, et le mineur l’excentricité et l’inclination de la
    traduction et de la rotation. Et vice versa.

    Nous verrons que les satellites à des planètes le plus éloigné et
    plus proches de leurs primaires auront plus grandes rotations et
    traduction et mineurs excentricité et inclination rotative et
    translacional. Et qui se produit dans la proportionnalité du temps de
    vie et de diâmetros qui représentent leur énergie et maser.

    Ceci si confirme avec les satellites de tous les planètes.

    PRINCIPE DE LA PROPORTIONNALITÉ DU RAPPORT ENTRE LES PHÉNOMÈNES.

    La POSITION, L’ÉLOIGNE et l’ÉLOIGNEMENT DÉPEND de l’ÉNERGIE De
    ASTRO.

    Le rapport entre l’éloignement des astros est croissant avec
    l’éloignement, dans lesquelles ils les plus éloignés agrandissent
    l’éloignement, par que le rapport de les éloignes est toujours
    croissant. Néanmoins, l’éloignement dépend de l’énergie dans le
    traitement de sa production, et d’énergie représentée elle-même
    par le diamètre, par lequel y a les sommets d’éloignement, comme le
    diamètre de l’astro avec son voisin. Cette différence se confirme
    entre Tritão et Nereida, deux satellites de Neptune, où la
    différence d’éloignement entre les deux est énorme, comparé avec
    des satellites de planètes plus proches du Soleil.

    Le rapport de tu les éloignes souffrent sommet croissant comme
    l’astro va en produire sa dynamique et son éloignement, ceci se
    confirme entre Titã et Réia de Saturno, Febe et Jupet de Saturno,
    entre Titânia et
    Umbriel de Urano, et entre les Planètes Jupiter et Mars. Et entre
    ganimedes et Europe de Jupiter.

    Donc ganimedes a le double du diamètre d’Europe et le double de
    s’éloigne. C’est-à-dire, l’énergie de l’astro détermine sa
    position dans l’espace, donc avec plus diamètre il aura plus grande
    énergie, plus grande rotation, plus grand éloignement de son
    primaire.

    Le même arrive avec Titânia et Umbriel des satellites d’Uranus, donc
    le rapport du diamètre est deux fois, c’est-à-dire, et le rapport de
    les éloigne entre les deux satellites est 1,8, tant que les autres
    avec des rapports de diamètre plus proches, et les rapports de tu les
    éloignes aussi sont minimes.

    La théorie de la gravitation ne fait mention à la position de
    s’éloigne par le diamètre, qui représente l’énergie et le temps de
    construction de l’astro et son action d’éloignement de l’astro le
    plus proche – voisin -, et que ceci influence dans la position et
    s’éloigne de l’astro dans l’espace.

    Entre ces astros la vitesse de traduction aussi accompagne
    approximativement dans une valeur de rapport entre des astros
    voisines. Nous voyons que la différence de traduction est plus grande
    entre des diâmetros et des positions plus grandes.
    Le même arrive avec la rotation, les inclinations, l’excentricité,
    et tous les autres phénomènes physiques et structurels, mange
    achatamento d’astro, atmosphère, activité tectônica, etc.

    Les satellites de Saturne dont se sont éloignés moins de Jupiter
    deêtre moindre de diamètre et avec petite énergie.

    Les bennes d’éloignement et la position par la benne de diamètre
    entre les planètes, satellites et comètes confirment la théorie de
    energeticidade et le maser.

    Et comme dans Jupiter qui a un intervalle plus grand d’éloignement de
    Mars, deêtre Jupiter avec plus grand diamètre, le même arrive entre
    Titã et Réia de Saturno, qui est quatre fois plus grande. Entre Febe
    et Jupet, et entre ganimedes et Europe, et entre Titânia et Umbriel
    de Urano. Cette différence entre les rapports aussi est présente
    dans les asteroïdes et dans les comètes.

    COMMENTAIRE GÉNÉRAL DE LA THÉORIE.

    Le même arrive avec la vitesse de traduction où la différence du
    rapport est plus grande dans les astros lesquelles maintient une
    différence de diamètre, comme c’est le cas entre les satellites de
    Saturne exposé ci-dessus, et entre Jupiter et Mars.
    Par que l’y a une différence énorme entre la vitesse de traduction
    de Jupiter et de Mars, donc même Jupiter en étant plus grand que
    Mars il a eu plus temps si en s’éloignant du soleil, diminuant
    progressivement influence reçue par le soleil dans l’origine de la
    traduction. Par que y a un rapport vingt fois plus grand dans le
    diamètre, trois fois et chaussette dans l’éloignement, deux fois
    moindre dans la vitesse de traduction de Jupiter pour Mars, deux fois
    et moyen plus grand dans la rotation. Ceci confirme exposé jusqu’ici,
    que la traduction a une origine par le primaire et diminue
    progressivement, jusqu’à l’astro elle-même à decoordonner à toute
    dynamique et traduction, rotation et éloignement s’équivaut comme
    l’énergie que le même produit.
    Cette confirmation s’approche pour Pluton, asteroïdes, comètes
    éloignés et satellites éloignés, où rotation, traduction et
    éloignement s’équivalent dans leurs valeurs.
    Nous avons ici la raison y a une benne dans le rapport de la
    traduction, un éloignement, une rotation, une excentricité et
    inclinations d’orbite et rotation.

    Cette différence de rapport aussi se maintient dans l’excentricité
    et l’inclination, et sont croissante avec l’éloignement.

    AINSI NOUS AVONS,

    1 la question de bennes dans le rapport entre les phénomènes
    conforme son énergie et diamètre,

    2-e le rapport croissant d’éloignement, inclination orbitaire et
    rotative, et excentricité conforme l’astro vont en être vieille et
    en brûlant son énergie. Que dépend du temps de vie et de l’énergie
    de l’astro, représentée par le diamètre.

    Les satellites de Jupiter sont approximativement cinq fois plus
    grandes comparées avec ce de Saturne, par lequel ils dans moyenne
    sont deux fois plus éloignées de ce de Saturne, si comparé avec ce
    de Jupiter.

    La traduction des satellites diminue comme l’éloignement de la
    planète au soleil et le diamètre de la planète. C’est-à-dire,
    l’énergie que il conserve dépend de l’énergie dont l’a formé, par
    que les satellites de Saturne possèdent plus grande traduction dont
    Uranus, même en étant la même éloigne et avec le même diamètre.

    PRINCIPE DE LA PROPORTIONNALITÉ.

    Orbite de Quíron – se confirme aussi à l’asteroïde Quíron le
    principe de la proportionnalité, donc par son étendu éloignement du
    Soleil, il développe plus la plus grande inclination d’orbite et plus
    la plus grande excentricité.

    Il se confirme à les asteroïdes EROS, avec excentricité de 0.83
    degré, Quiron, hidalgo, et autres. De même dans des comètes, qui
    l’éloignent du Soleil ne sont pas le fondamental pour le fil de
    l’astro dans l’espace, mais leur énergie et maser représenté par
    leur diamètre.

    Comme ce a déjà été vu que l’éloignement et la position laquelle
    marque s’éloignent du primaire dépendent de l’énergie de l’astro.

    Et les inclinations et les excentricités dépendent de l’énergie des
    mêmes, donc des asteroïdes, comètes et satellites moindres et plus
    éloignés de leurs primaires possèdent les les plus grandes
    inclinations et les excentricités. Et les les plus grandes planètes
    les moindres excentricités et les inclinations et l’ensemble des
    dynamiques – traduction, rotation, et éloignement aussi accompagnent
    l’énergie de l’astro.

    La RELATION ENTRE GANIMEDES DE JUPITER et TITÃ de SATURNE.

    GANIMEDES a un diamètre 5.250 km, et TITÃ a un diamètre 5.800 km.

    Ganimedes se trouve à un s’éloigne 1.070.000 de km du primaire.
    TITÃ se trouve à un éloigne 1.222.000 km du primaire.

    Ganimedes a une vitesse de 10.9 km/s. Titã a une vitesse de 5.6 km/s.

    Et la différence entre les diâmetros de de Jupiter et Saturno est
    minime.

    Bientôt si conclut que si la gravitation avait quelques-unes
    influence sur la vitesse de traduction la différence de la traduction
    entre les deux serait minime et ce ne serait pas approximativement le
    double. Avec ceci si conclut que toute dynamique dépend de l’énergie
    de l’astro, et si Jupiter est plus nouveau de ce que Saturne, ensuite
    son satellite aussi est plus nouveau, considérant aussi que tant que
    ganimedes est le troisième satellite de Jupiter, Titã est le
    septième satellite de Saturne. Bientôt, titã est plus vieille et a
    dépensé plus énergie, avec ceci développe petite vitesse de
    traduction.
    Par que la différence de la vitesse de traduction est le double.

    Tant que par la théorie de la gravitation devrait s’équivaloir dans
    les valeurs.
    Nous voyons ici que l’éloigne avec le diamètre n’a pas influencé
    dans la vitesse de traduction, mais, le temps de vie et l’énergie
    représentée par le diamètre.

    Ceci confirme la théorie de energeticidade et le maser.

    RELATION ENTRE PRIMAIRES et SECONDAIRES.

    Le diamètre et l’éloignement des secondaires varient comme le
    diamètre de primaire et son temps de vie.

    RELATION de VITESSE de TRADUCTION ENTRE des SATELLITES CONFORME
    l’ÉLOIGNEMENT, le TEMPS de VIE et le DIAMÈTRE de LEURS PRIMAIRES.

    Il se confirme que la valeur du diamètre de Jupiter est proche de ce
    de Saturne, et Jupiter avec leurs satellites cinq fois l’éloigne de
    ce de Saturne, trois fois le diamètre de ce de Saturne et les valeurs
    de la vitesse de traduction s’approchent.

    Avec ceci si conclut que ce n’est pas elle éloigne et quelque force
    qui agit sur l’astro, mais l’énergie elle-même du même.

    D’AUTRES SUJETS.

    Éloigne marque le temps de vie de l’astro, et diamètre du primaire
    avec son diamètre et l’éloigne du primaire marque le temps de vie et
    l’énergie déjà processada et l’énergie encore pour être
    processada.

    MASER, ATMOSPHÈRE, ANNEAUX, DISQUES de SPHÈRES et ASTROS.

    Ainsi que Saturne et Uranus aussi possède des anneaux, avec vitesse
    de traduction de plus de vingt Km/s, et que Jupiter possède une
    atmosphère spiralée avec traduction et un élargissement, proche de
    son équateur. Ceci confirme que la traduction des secondaires se
    donne lieu d’énergie et à de maser du primaire, et que part de ce
    maser se transforme dans des anneaux proches de l’équateur, et qui va
    si esferificar, donnant du début à un nouveau secondaire. Nous
    voyons dans les anneaux d’Uranus que ils développent une traduction
    de plus de vingt kilomètres par en second.

    Et que la traduction apparaît initialement du propre secondaire, et
    par laquelle tous secondaires produisent une orbite avec peu
    d’inclination et toujours proche de l’équateur.

    À des’éloigner du primaire, le secondaire va produire sa propre
    dynamique, va donner du début les tertiaires qui initieront sa
    traduction conforme son énergie et maser.

    Ils et sortiront de l’essieu de traduction du primaire, donnant du
    début à un nouveau système d’astros, mineurs, plus lents et avec
    plus irrégularités dans sa dynamique de traduction, rotation et
    éloignement.

    L’ORIGINE des SECONDAIRES.

    L’action centrifuge de la rotation et le magnétisme de l’astro fait
    avec que son maser et l’atmosphère se déplacent pour l’équateur,
    où va forme dans des filaments de l’atmosphère et dans le futur
    anneau. Des anneaux vont se former des tablettes cubiques de gaz et
    partir de là à esferificação, de où va se former dans
    secondaires.

    Par que les secondaires possèdent une traduction décroissante des
    proches pour les derniers. Et que l’orbite toujours est proche de
    l’équateur.
    Avec le passage des temps, l’énergie diminue et les astros commencent
    à produire leur orbite et irrégularités dans l’espace.

    Dans l’avenir probablement nous aurons de nouvelles astros et avec de
    nouvelles énergies, donc le processus est constant.

    D’AUTRES SUJETS.

    Les secondaires plus éloignés et moindres sont de les plus
    irréguliers dans leurs inclinations d’orbite et rotation, et
    d’excentricité.
    Ceci si confirme, dans les satellites le plus éloigné, dans les
    asteroïdes et dans les comètes.

    MOUVEMENT RÉTROGRADE.

    Le satellite quand très petit et très éloigné tend à agrandir son
    inclination et excentricité progressivement, et ce type de mouvement
    inversé peut être trouvé à le satellite Febe de Saturno. Donc Febe
    possède une inclination d’orbite de 160 degrés et une grande
    excentricité.
    Ce qu’amène l’astro à développer l’orbite rétrograde est qu’il a
    initié normalement sa traduction depuis sa naissance par son
    primaire. Seulement toute astro qui possède peu de dimension et
    trouve éloignée d’primaire lui possède peu d’énergie si en
    traitant, donc il a déjà dépensé grande partie de son énergie, et
    ainsi, il commence à produire des irrégularités dans sa dynamique
    dans l’espace. Que commence avec une croissante irrégularité
    jusqu’au mouvement rétrograde.

    Uranus est une planète qui marche de côté, c’est-à-dire, les
    irrégularités sont plus grand avec l’éloignement, le vieillissement
    et la diminution de production d’énergie et le maser.

    Avec énormes tu éloignes de leurs primaires, astros petites,
    tertiaires, avec peu d’énergie et elles vieillis seront des astros
    avec peu de dynamique, grands éloignements, grandes excentricités et
    inclinations et beaucoup avec des mouvements rétrogrades.

    SUR PRÉTENDUE SAISIE D’ASTROS PAR DES PLANÈTES.

    Ceci n’existe pas, donc tous les astros sont libérés dans l’espace,
    et n’y a pas ceci de champ en tirant pour son orbite, et aussi par le
    maser les astros sont éloignées et non attirés, comme se pense
    aujourd’hui. Et ce qui produit les orbites irrégulières est à peu
    d’énergie de l’astro elle-même pour coordonner sa dynamique, ceci
    arrive avec tous les astros petites et éloignées de leurs primaires,
    ensuite les satellites petits de Saturne jamais n’ont pas été
    capturés, mais produits par Saturne.

    Il se peut comparer que toute astro petite et éloignée possède de
    grandes irrégularités dans sa dynamique, depuis la rotation, la
    traduction et l’éloignement.

    SUR la PRÉTENDUE DENSITÉ De ASTROS.

    La densité des astros éloignées est une invencionice pour se donner
    une proximité dans les résultats pour la vitesse de traduction qui
    est calculée par la gravitation, néanmoins si mal nous connaissons
    la densité de la Terre, comme nous pouvons connaître la densité de
    planètes éloignées.

    Par que dans mes calculs, utilisation diamètre et température
    deêtre plus proche de la réalité.

    RAPPORT CROISSANT de PHÉNOMÈNES ENTRE des ASTROS MOINDRES Et
    ÉLOIGNÉES.

    Dans le les plus éloignés et moindres rapport de l’éloignement, des
    inclinations et de l’excentricité sont toujours plus grands et
    croissants avec l’éloignement et la diminution de la dimension de
    l’astro.

    Éloigne et l’éloignement aussi sont croissant, donc avec la
    diminution d’énergie ils commencent à produire des orbites toujours
    plus irréguliers.

    SUR l’ÉLOIGNEMENT de SATELLITES.

    Les satellites de Saturne se sont éloignés moins de leur primaire
    être moindres et avec petite énergie, comme ce de Jupiter se sont
    éloignés plus, deêtre plus grands et avec plus énergie. Ceci
    confirme que les astros alem de la rotation et traduction elles
    s’éloignent comme leur production d’énergie.

    SUR TRITÃO et SON MOUVEMENT RÉTROGRADE.

    TRITÃO est un des satellites géants et possède une grande
    excentricité et une inclination orbitaire de 160 degrés, considéré
    un des satellites lesquels a un mouvement rétrograde posséder
    tamanha inclination concernant le plan de l’équateur de Neptune. Ceci
    seulement vient à contribuer avec la théorie exposée jusqu’à ici.
    Donc des satellites de planètes éloignées aussi possèdent des
    irrégularités grandes, même en étant un géant.

    NEREIDA, le SATELLITE de PLUS GRANDE EXCENTRICITÉ.

    NEREIDA est autre satellite de Neptune qui possède une grande
    inclination d’orbite de 28 degrés et une des plus grandes
    excentricités, avec 0.75 degré. Ceci seulement vient à contribuer
    avec la théorie de energeticidade, de que des planètes éloignées,
    satellites éloignés et vieux et petits produisent de grandes
    irrégularités, et Nereida est le satellite avec plus grande
    excentricité des satellites jusqu’à ici découverts.

    NEREIDA aussi possède un grand éloignement du satellite voisin,
    le cas Tritão. C’est-à-dire, les satellites le plus éloigné et de
    planètes plus éloignées sont les plus irréguliers dans leur
    excentricité et inclination.

    OÙ SE CONFIRME EXPOSÉ Par la THÉORIE ICI PROPOSÉE. DANS QUE la
    DIMINUTION de la PRODUCTION d’ÉNERGIE PREND les CROISSANTES
    IRRÉGULARITÉS de ASTROS.

    Nous voyons que Tritão et le satellite de Saturne – febe possèdent
    mouvement rétrograde.

    Probablement sa rotation est minime et avec grande inclination de
    rotation.

    Probablement les satellites de Pluton, les mineurs et plus éloignés
    de lui seront de plus grandes irrégularités et avec de mouvements
    rétrogrades.

    SUR l’ATMOSPHÈRE de TITÃ.

    Probablement titã avec leur atmosphère produira un quatrièmes
    générations d’astro. Que ce sera le premier satellite avec
    satellite.

    SUR CARONTE.

    Probablement Caronte, satellite de Pluton possède une grande
    excentricité et une inclination orbitaire.

    Caronte tourne autour de Pluton 6.39 jours, où c’est le même temps
    que la planète prend pour tourner son essieu, maintenant toujours le
    même face un pour l’autre. Ceci si confirme dans exposé jusqu’
    ici, que la traduction du secondaire commence même avant de
    l’secondaire si esferificar, c’est-à-dire, encore mange des filaments
    et anneaux de l’atmosphère et maser du primaire, qu’avec sa rotation
    passe à transladar les anneaux et les filaments de l’atmosphère,
    même si esferificar. Si esferificando commence à produire cette
    traduction initiale dans baisse de prix du primaire. À des’éloigner
    commence à produire sa propre traduction.

    À l’si esferificar commence à produire la rotation elle-même.
    Avec le temps et l’éloignement ce secondaire, va produire autre
    secondaire, se rendant un primaire.

    Comme l’astro va si en s’éloignant et en restant sans énergie, il
    abandonne l’orbite initiale, produisant des systèmes orbitaires
    irréguliers et aléatoires dans l’espace. Toujours nouveaux avec
    petite énergie et avec moins plus dynamique et plus irrégularités
    d’inclinations et d’excentricités. Ceci peut être confirmé avec les
    asteroïdes et les comètes.

    ORBITES ERRANTES et ALÉATOIRES.

    Ceci est un processus qui commence avec peu d’irrégularité, passe
    stabilité et retourne l’irrégularité et grande instabilidades et
    des orbites errantes et aléatoires.

    ACTION de la VITESSE ÉQUATORIALE du PRIMAIRE SUR la TRADUCTION
    INITIALE du SECONDAIRE.

    Ceci si confirme entre les satellites des planètes, donc avec les
    mêmes tu éloignes les satellites d’Uranus développent trois fois
    moins la période de révolution comparée avec ce de Saturne. Donc la
    vitesse équatoriale de Saturne est trois fois plus grande de ce que
    d’Uranus.

    Et la différence entre les satellites de Jupiter et de Saturne est de
    1.25 de période de révolution plus grande pour les satellites de
    Jupiter pour la même s’éloigne, donc la différence de la vitesse
    équatoriale entre les deux est des 1.25 plus grands pour Jupiter.
    Comme aussi la différence est proche du rapport un pour diamètres et
    rotations, et 1,3 pour traduction.

    Il est bon de rejaillir que l’énergie produit la rotation, qui
    produit la vitesse équatoriale qui avec le maser va produire la
    traduction du secondaire. Et le secondaire sera produit par le
    matériel expulsé mange forme de maser du primaire. À l’si
    esferificar et se rendra astro il va initier sa rotation, par lequel
    les secondaires très proches possèdent peu de rotation, donc encore
    commencent à s’accélérer rotativement. Ceci si confirme dans les
    tous primaires très proches.

    ICI NOUS AVONS DES EXPLICATIONS PUISSANTES DE L’ASTRONOMIE.

    1 – le primaire produit le secondaire qu’aussi initie sa traduction.

    Alors nous avons ici le début de la traduction et à de l’origine de
    l’astro.

    2 – parce que le tertiaire accompagne le secondaire, et les deux
    accompagnent le primaire par l’espace.
    Donc, dans le ils début ont eu une origine de la traduction produite
    par le primaire, mettre, à s’éloignera et perdra énergie ce
    secondaire, ou tertiaire va sortir du système complètement, donc,
    lui-même à l’intérieur du système solaire déjà produit sa propre
    dynamique, seulement excepté du système, il plus ne accompagnera pas
    le primaire par l’espace. Ceci déjà arrive avec quelques comètes et
    asteroïdes, qui quelquefois entrent à l’intérieur du système
    solaire et sortent sans desouffrir et influencent d’action personne du
    Soleil.

    3- par que toute astro très proche du primaire possède peu de
    rotation. Donc encore est dans formation et toute sa dynamique encore
    est minime.

    PRINCIPE de l’ORIGINE de ASTRO et de la DYNAMIQUE.

    Ainsi, nous avons ici le début de l’astro, le début de la rotation
    et la vitesse équatoriale, de la traduction.
    Ainsi, à des’éloigner il va produire sa propre rotation et
    traduction, et avec son énergie et maser va produire de nouveaux
    filaments de gaz, à partir de là nouvelles sphères, qui avec leur
    vitesse équatoriale vont produire la traduction dans la nouvelle
    astro, et à partir de là sa esferificação et rotation.

    Même avant d’être sphère l’astro déjà possède traduction.

    Il va en être éloigné par le maser et la température du primaire,
    et commence à produire sa propre traduction et rotation.

    Par que un tertiaire accompagne la traduction du secondaire, même la
    cette secondaire en accompagnant traduction du primaire. Le mettre
    avec l’éloignement tendra à produire une orbite isolée, avec autres
    inclinations et excentricités.

    À des’lui éloigner aura petite énergie, et conséquentement moins
    plus dynamique et plus irrégularités. VOIR PRINCIPE DE
    CIRCULARIDADE.

    L’ÉNERGIE DÉTERMINE et PRODUIT la DYNAMIQUE et la STABILITÉ Dans
    ASTRO.
    CECI SI CONFIRME DE JUPITER à TRITÃO.

    CALCUL DE LA TRADUCTION PAR LA ROTATION DE ASTRO ELLE-MÊME CONCERNANT
    LA ROTATION DE LA TERRE MULTIPLIÉE PAR CINQ. POUR DES PLANÈTES
    EXTÉRIEURES.

    Jupiter – 2,3 * 5 = 13. Saturne – 2,1 * 5 = 10. Uranus – 1,1 * 5 = 5,5
    Neptune – 1 * 5 = 5. Pluton – 0,2 * 5=5.

    Cette relation entre rotation et traduction pour planètes, aussi se
    confirment pour les satellites extérieurs de Jupiter, de Saturne, et
    d’Uranus.

    SUR URANUS.

    Uranus marche de côté posséder peu d’énergie et être en initier
    une orbite et une rotation avec grande inclination.

    La tendance est que dans l’avenir les astros soient dans plus grand
    numérote et plus lents et tous avec des orbites aléatoires et
    irrégulières. Et beaucoup de réactionnaires.
    Et que ne accompagnent aussi pas les primaires par l’espace

    SUR la ROTATION d’URANUS.

    Uranus possède trois fois petit diamètre dont Jupiter et quatre fois
    plus de ce que la Terre, et en étant plus vieille et avec petite
    énergie, donc a eu plus temps en dépensant l’énergie, ensuite la
    valeur de sa rotation a que s’approchera de la valeur de la Terre,
    restant entre vingt et vingt cinq heures.

    Et ceci déjà si a confirmé avec le commentaire.

    La rotation de Neptune aussi est proche ce de la Terre.

    ASTEROÏDES.

    L’ASTEROÏDE ÍCARO possède une excentricité de 0.83 degré et va
    proche Mercúrio et Mars, et dans le périhélie reste 28.000.000
    des kilomètres du Soleil, et dans l’aphélie reste 307.000.000 à des
    kilomètres du Soleil. Avec ceci si conclut que l’orbite dépend de
    l’énergie de l’astro, et non de la gravitation. Donc des astros
    moindres produisent des orbites plus irréguliers.

    L’ASTEROÏDE HIDALGO, avec une période orbitaire de 13.7 ans, et
    d’une excentricité de 0.67 degré, et avec une inclination orbitaire
    de 43 degrés.

    QUÍRON possède une excentricité orbitaire de 0.379, et avec une
    inclination orbitaire de 6.9 degrés.

    Avec ceci nous constatons que l’orbite n’est pas déterminée par la
    gravitation de l’astro ou du Soleil, mais par son énergie, donc
    approximativement dans la même s’éloigne des planètes au Soleil,
    les asteroïdes produisent des orbites beaucoup irréguliers,
    deposséder peu d’énergie, et avec une période de révolution peu
    dont moindre les planètes.

    Avec ceci si constate que les astros sont libres et en produisant sa
    propre dynamique.

    Avec ceci, se confirme exposé jusqu’à ici, que d’astros ils petites
    possèdent peu de dynamique et orbites irrégulières, par produisent
    peu d’énergie, et ceci independe de s’éloigne du Soleil.

    CALCUL de VITESSE de TRADUCTION du SECONDAIRE AVEC la VITESSE
    ÉQUATORIALE du PRIMAIRE MULTIPLIÉE AVEC le DIAMÈTRE et DIVISÉ Par
    l’ÉLOIGNEMENT.

    Il est BON DE RAPPORTER QUE la VITESSE ÉQUATORIALE du PRIMAIRE INITIE
    la TRADUCTION, COMME à ÉNERGIE, à MASER, à DIAMÈTRE et
    ROTATION du PRIMAIRE.

    Le DIAMÈTRE REPRÉSENTE l’ÉNERGIE et le MASER du SECONDAIRE.

    L’ÉLOIGNEMENT REPRÉSENTE le TEMPS de VIE et les DÉPENSES d’ÉNERGIE
    PENDANT CE TEMPS.

    La VITESSE ÉQUATORIALE de la PLANÈTE DANS QUILOMETRO PAR HEURE.

    Le diamètre est divisé par 1.000.

    L’éloignement est divisé par 100.000 pour satellites, comètes et
    asteroïdes.

    L’éloignement est divisé par 100.000.000 pour des planètes.

    VITESSE DE TRADUCTION PAR LA VITESSE ÉQUATORIALE DU PRIMAIRE.
    1680/1000 = 1,68 vitesse équatoriale de la Terre.
    3470/1000 = 3,47 diamètre de la Lune 384.000/100.000 = 3,87
    éloignement de la Lune dans relation Terre.
    Lune – 1,68 * 3,47/3,84 = 1,5/2 = 0,75 km/s.

    Pour des satellites de Jupiter.

    EC – 45000/1000 = 45,3670/1000 = 3,67 420000/100000=4.2 45*3.67/4,2 =
    39,3/2 = 19,5 km/en second.

    Europe.
    45000/1000=45 2980/ 1000 = 2,98 671000/100000=6.71 45*2.98/6,71 =
    19.9/2=10

    Ganimedes.
    45000/1000 = 45,5250/1000=5.250 1.070.000/100000 = 10 45*5.2/10.7=22/2
    = 11

    Calisto.
    45.000/1000=45 4900/1000=4.9 1.884.000/100000 = 18.8
    45*4.9/18.8=11.7/2 =.6 km/en second.

    Pour les satellites de Saturne.

    Satellite janus 37000 /,1000 = 37 quilometro/en second.
    300 /,1000 = 0,3 159000/100000=1.59 37*0.3/1.59=7

    Titã 37 * 5.8/12.2 = 17.5

    D’AUTRE FORME de DESE CALCULER de la TRADUCTION Par le PRIMAIRE.

    Pour que se calculent orbite de planète se divise éloigne par
    100.000 000.
    Pour que se calculent orbite de satellite se divise éloigne par 100
    000.

    La vitesse équatoriale se divise par 1000 de telle façon dans le
    calcul pour des planètes combien pour satellites. Dans quilometro par
    heure.

    Le diamètre se divise par 1000 de telle façon pour calcul pour des
    planètes combien pour satellites.

    La formule est vitesse équatoriale du primaire/1000 [ diamètre/1000
    ]/[ éloigne/par 100.000.000 pour des planètes 1 ].

    Mercure.

    Vitesse équatoriale du Soleil par heure = 60.000 km/s/1 000=60.
    Diamètre de la planète = 4.500 quilometro/1.000 = 4.5.

    Il éloigne de la planète au Soleil. = 58.000 000
    quilometro/100.000.000. [ 1 ].

    60 4,5/[ 0,58 1 ] = 41 quilometro par en second.

    Vénus.
    60,8/[ 1,08 1 ] = 32,7 quilometro par en second.

    Terre = 60,12/[ 1,5 1 ] = 28.8. Mars = 60,6/[ 2,2 1 ] = 20.6. Jupiter
    = 60.144/[ 7,8 1]=20. Saturne = 60.120 /.14.1 ] = 12. Uranus = 60,46/[
    28.1 ] = 3.6. Neptune = 60,45 /.45.1 ] = 2,3 Pluton = 60,6 /.59.1 ] =
    1.1

    POUR QUE SE CALCULENT la VITESSE de TRADUCTION des SATELLITES Par la
    VITESSE ÉQUATORIALE de LEURS RESPECTIVES PLANÈTES.

    Vitesse équatoriale de primaire dans quilometro par heure divisée
    par 1.000.
    Le diamètre du satellite divisé par 1.000.
    Éloigne du satellite de son primaire divisé par 100.000 [ cent mille
    ].
    Commentaire. Pour les planètes c’est 100.000.000 [ cent millions ].

    FORMULE.

    VITESSE ÉQUATORIALE DU PRIMAIRE/1.000 DIAMÈTRE DU SECONDAIRE/1.000/[
    ÉLOIGNE/100.000 ].

    POUR le SATELLITE de la TERRE, la LUNE.

    Lune.
    [ 1680/1.000 ] [ 3.470/1.000 ]/[ 384.000/100.000 ] = 1,3 km/en second.

    POUR LES SATELLITES DE JUPITER.

    Vitesse Équatoriale de Jupiter/1.000 diamètre du
    satellite/1.000/s’éloigne du satellite/100.000. EC.
    [ 45.000/1.000 ] [ 3.650/1.000 ]/[ 420.000/100.000]=11.5 km/en second.

    Europe. 45 2,98/6,71 = 7,1 quilometro par en second.
    Ganimedes. 45 5,25/10,7 = 4.7. Calisto. 45 4,9/18,8 = 2.6
    POUR LES SATELLITES DE SATURNE.

    [ vitesse Équatoriale de Saturne/1.000 ] [ diamètre du
    satellite/1.000 ]/[ éloigne/100.000 ].

    JANUS.
    [ 37.000/1000 ] [ 300.1000 ]/[ 159 000/100 000]=23.4 km par seconde.

    TU MIMES. 37 0,4/1,86 = 20,1 quilometro par en second.
    ENCÉLADO. 37 0,6/2,38 = 15.7. TÉTIS. 37.1. / 2,95 = 12,8 DIONÉIA 37
    0,8/3,77 = 10 RÉIA 37,1/5,27 = 7,2 TITÃ 37 5.8/12.2 = 4,3 HIPÉRION
    37 0,4/14,8 = 2,5 JAPET. 37 1,6/35,5 = 1. FEBE 37 0,2/129 = 0.28

    CALCUL DE VITESSE DE TRADUCTION PAR VITESSE ÉQUATORIALE DU PRIMAIRE.

    POUR DES SATELLITES D’URANUS.

    La vitesse équatoriale du primaire par heure/1.000 le diamètre du
    satellite/1.000/de s’éloigne/de 100.000.

    MIRANDA – 13,7 0,24/1,3 = 10 quilometro par en second.
    ARIEL – 13,7 0,7/1,92 = 7,5 UMBRIEL – 13,7 0,5/2,67 = 5,3 TITÂNIA –
    13,7 1/4,38 = 3,3 0BERON – 13,7 0,9/5,86 = 2.3

    CALCUL POUR TRITÃO, SATELLITE DE NEPTUNE, PAR VITESSE ÉQUATORIALE
    PAR HEURE.

    [ 9.000/1.000 ] [ 3.800/1.000 ]/[ 340.000/100.000 ] = 9 3,8/3,2 = 4
    quilometro par en second.

    CALCUL POUR CARONTE, SATELLITE DE PLUTON.

    Vitesse équatoriale de PLUTON [ 140/1.000 ] [ diamètre 1.200/1.000
    ]/[ Éloigne 20.000/100.000 ]. = 0,14 1,2/0,5 = 3,1 quilometro par en
    second.

    Il donne pour que s’observent que comme les planètes vont si en
    s’éloignant du Soleil, l’orbite de leurs primaires aussi se rendent
    plus lente, donc des satellites avec le même diamètre et la même
    éloignent concernant des satellites des planètes éloignées,
    ceux-ci diminuent progressivement leur dynamique et agrandissent les
    irrégularités dans l’excentricité et dans les inclinations. Avec
    ceci seul si a à confirmer plus encore la théorie de energeticidade
    et maser.

    De que les planètes le plus éloigné ont été premiers à être
    produites, et ont produit premiers leurs satellites, avec ceci ils eux
    possèdent petite énergie, ils donc ont eu plus temps en dépensant
    et en traitant l’énergie. Et ceci fuit complètement quelconque
    relation en des effets de gravitation. Et va de rencontre à au
    soutenu ici par la théorie de energeticidade et maser. De que
    l’énergie et le temps de traitement de cette énergie déterminent la
    vie, les processus, la structure, l’orbite, activités thermiques,
    séismes, énergie, magnétisme, activité tectônica, maser,
    activité tectônica, orbite, dynamique et l’atmosphère.

    Dans cette forme de calcul pour se trouver la traduction du secondaire
    par la vitesse équatoriale du primaire, est exprès que conforme le
    diamètre diminue l’énergie aussi est moindre, décroît le maser.
    Aussi décroît et les activités tectônicas et l’atmosphère
    accompagne la diminution, la rotation du primaire diminue en
    décroissant sa vitesse équatoriale, avec ceci voit que comme
    décroît le diamètre, diminue la traduction du secondaire, par
    laquelle les mineurs et plus éloignés possèdent des dynamiques
    moindres.

    UNIVERS de CONSTRUCTION et DESCONSTRUÇÃO.

    L’univers est un processus constant de construction et
    desconstrução, et quelques univers se trouvent dans phase de
    diminution d’énergie et de leurs phénomènes, qui est le cas de
    nôtre.
    Commentaire. Voir de la théorie de l’univers fluxonário et
    estruturante.

    Les résultats trouvés par le calcul de traduction par la vitesse
    équatoriale et leur proximité avec la précision seulement viennent
    à confirmer l’action de la vitesse équatoriale produite par
    l’énergie et le maser dans la production de la traduction et l’orbite
    du secondaire dans l’espace. Et que les satellites des planètes le
    plus éloigné, avec la même s’éloignent concernant autres
    satellites, et que des planètes ils éloignées développent petit
    dynamique. Ceci si confirme aussi dans l’éloignement et dans la
    rotation des satellites. Et leurs orbites sont les plus irrégulières
    par l’éloignement et par le diamètre.

    C’est bon savoir que utilisation fantaisie de valeurs de densités
    d’astros pour dene pas arriver à des résultats qui ne viennent pas
    à battre avec la formule, comme est utilisé dans la théorie de la
    gravitation.

    Il se confirme que les anneaux et les atmosphères aussi possèdent
    traduction, avec ceci même avant exister mange sphère, donc l’astro
    je mange filament déjà développe sa traduction.

    PRINCIPE de l’ÉQUIVALENCE.

    Il y a une benne de valeurs de diamètre entre des satellites de
    Saturne, et cette benne se répète entre eux éloignes des mêmes des
    satellites. Que c’est entre Réia et Titã, et entre JAPET et
    Hipérion tous de Saturne, et cette différence c’est de trois fois
    pour les diâmetros et pour les phénomènes des satellites. De même
    avec l’éloignement.

    Cette différence se fait cadeau aussi entre éloigne et diamètre de
    Titânia et d’Umbriel satellites d’Uranus. Comme déjà a été vu
    cette benne équivalente aussi est présente entre Jupiter et Mars. Et
    comme déjà a été vu cette benne doit à énergie que l’astro a
    produit plus et le temps que le même a pris pour s’éloigner du
    voisin proche qui est dans formation.

    La benne, ou meilleure, le temps de production de l’astro avec le
    temps d’accélération par l’amélioration d’énergie enregistrée par
    la différence du diamètre, déterminent une benne dans
    l’éloignement et tous les autres phénomènes, l’orbite et la
    structure.

    Il est équivalence de bennes va aussi être présent dans
    l’éloignement, la traduction, la révolution, la rotation,
    inclinations rotatives et translacional, excentricité, achatamento de
    la sphère de l’astro, et autres phénomènes, variations de structure
    et irrégularités, température, activité tectônica, anneaux et
    atmosphère, et tous les autres phénomènes et les formations
    structurelles et orbitaires.

    Cette benne équivalente prouve tous les phénomènes exposés
    jusqu’à ici, développés et exposés par la théorie de l’univers
    fluxonário estruturante et par la théorie de energeticidade et
    maser.

    Les courants aussi accompagnent et varient comme varient ces bennes.

    La NAISSANCE de la TRADUCTION.

    L’énergie produit le maser, le maser produit la rotation,
    l’atmosphère, anneaux, et astros qui se forment et elles que sont des
    parties des primaires, et mange partie dont du primaire ce nous avons
    de la notion de traduction est en vérité encore partie de la
    rotation du primaire. Seulement plus éloigné que ce secondaire va
    produire sa rotation et sa propre traduction. Même avant être
    sphère l’astro déjà possède traduction et rotation.

    Nous voyons dans Mercure que le même possède grande traduction et
    peu de rotation, par que il encore est partie du Soleil et de sa
    rotation et vitesse équatoriale. Le même arrive avec l’Amaltéia
    premier satellite de Jupiter, et avec Janus premier satellite de
    Saturne.

    À des’éloigner à ils tous produiront sa propre rotation et
    traduction, sortant du primaire et en produisant sa propre orbite.

    Ceci confirme parce que même en produisant sa dynamique et
    éloignement le satellite accompagne sa planète, et celui-ci à son
    tour le Soleil.

    Néanmoins existent des comètes qui produisent des orbites sans
    deaccompagner leur primaire.

    La traduction de l’astro s’initie encore mange l’atmosphère, ensuite
    filaments de l’atmosphère qui est le cas des anneaux de Jupiter,
    ensuite mange des anneaux qui est le cas de Saturne et l’Uranus, et
    finalement mange sphère.

    SUR l’ORIGINE de la ROTATION.

    Quand encore nouveau la rotation encore est si en initiant, par
    laquelle tous les astros le plus proche de leurs primaires possèdent
    peu de rotation, ceci se confirme des planètes aux satellites.

    Le même arrive avec l’éloignement du primaire. Donc c’est conforme
    à énergie que l’astro a acquis pendant la formation que le même
    développera toute sa dynamique, orbite, phénomènes et structure
    physique et chimique. Et traitements chimiques.

    CALCUL POUR EXCENTRICITÉ DES SATELLITES DE SATURNE.
    En considérant le diamètre et l’éloignement, se confirme que les
    les plus grands et plus proches possèdent petite excentricité, et
    vice versa.

    Le même se réussit avec l’inclination orbitaire et de la rotation.

    Il suit ainsi, le principe de la stabilité et circularidade par la
    production d’énergie.
    Le diamètre dans quilometro et non concernant la Terre.

    JANUS – 0,2/diamètre/100 progression en rétrocédant de 10 jusqu’au
    un conforme o nombre des satellites.

    JANUS – 0,2/3,10 = 0,038 MINE – 0,2/4,9 = 0,038 ENCÉLADO – 0,2/6,8 =
    0,035 TÉTIS – 0,2/10,7 = 0,03 DIONÉIA – 0,2/8,6 = 0,035 RÉIA –
    0,2/16,5 = 0,023 TITÃ – 0,2/58,4 = 0,008 HIPÉRION – 0,2/4,3 = 0,07
    JAPET – 0,2/16 2=0.028 FEBE – 0,2/2,4 1=0.147

    Ce calcul s’approche de la réalité et est exact pour la majorité
    des satellites de Saturne.

    Ici si confirme que plus éloigné et moindre, plus grand c’est
    l’excentricité de l’astro.

    Et je mange Jupiter, titã deêtre immense et même en étant
    éloigné, possède une excentricité minime.

    CALCUL POUR ÉLOIGNEMENT DE SATELLITES.
    ÉQUIVALENCE de DIFFÉRENCE ENTRE DIAMÈTRE et ÉLOIGNEMENT.

    FEBE JAPET – diamètre 16 de febe, divisé par le diamètre de Japet
    2,4, est égal à six fois – que s’approche de l’éloignement entre
    les deux.

    Entre Japet et Hipérion = diamètre de Japet 16 divisé par le
    diamètre de Hipérion quatre, = le rapport de la différence de
    l’éloignement s’approche de deux.

    Entre Titã et Réia – titã possède un diamètre de 58 quilometro,
    et Réia est 16.,58/16 = 3, ensuite le rapport de s’éloigne
    s’approche de trois.

    Entre RÉIA et DIONÉIA – le diamètre de Réia est 16 kilomètres et
    dionéia est huit, divisant 16 par huit, ensuite le rapport de
    l’éloignement entre les deux s’approche de deux.

    Pour les autres, le rapport entre les diâmetros diminue dont pour
    moins deux, ensuite le rapport entre l’éloignement aussi bat pour
    moins lequel deux.

    Le même arrive entre les satellites d’URANUS, dans lequel tous
    possèdent un rapport de diamètre au-dessous de deux, et tous
    possèdent un rapport d’éloignement au-dessous de deux, néanmoins
    entre Titânia et umbriel le rapport du diamètre arrive proche de
    deux, dans qu’aussi le rapport de l’éloignement arrive proche de
    deux.

    Même arrive avec autres satellites de autres planètes, et entre
    planètes, cette différence de éloignement par diamètre, qui en
    vérité est l’énergie processada qui s’éloigne l’astro, a
    clairement ENTRE JUPITER et MARS.

    Cette différence accompagne pour tous les phénomènes, la variation
    de structure, la désintégration, l’intensité de phénomènes, la
    dynamique et l’orbite.

    Avec ceci si preuve que les astros sont dans éloignement produit par
    l’énergie et le maser.

    Et que la théorie de la gravitation a utilisé s’éloigne, mais n’a
    pas réussi à la calculer. Néanmoins j’ai ici calculé de telle
    façon pour des planètes, combien pour des satellites. Et ce n’a pas
    été précis de faire utilisation de éloigne comme constante pour
    que se trouve la dynamique, l’orbite et autres phénomènes et
    structures des astros.

    Ceci confirme que les astros s’éloignent par l’énergie, et ils ne
    s’attirent pas par la gravitation.

    Et que le rapport de s’éloigne est plus grand entre les plus
    éloignés, ceci se confirme entre Tritão et Nereida, et entre Japet
    et Fege.

    CALCUL POUR INCLINATION DES SATELLITES DE SATURNE

    Avec le diamètre dans des kilomètres divisé par 100, avec la
    progression de 1 à 10 pour les respectifs satellites, divisés du
    résultat du diamètre.

    JANUS -1/3 = 0,3 TU MIMES – 2 /,4 = 05 ENCÉLADO – 3 /,6 = 05 TÉTIS –
    4/10=04 DIONÉIA – 5/8=0.62 RÉIA – 6/16=0.37 TITÃ – 7/58=0.12
    HIPÉRION – 8 /,4 = 2 JAPET – 9/16=0.5 FEBE – 10/2.4=4.1

    Il se confirme par ce calcul que l’inclination est croissante avec
    l’éloignement, et que les plus grands et avec plus énergie si en
    traitant l’inclination est moindre.

    IRRÉGULARITÉS AVEC la DIMINUTION de PRODUCTION d’ÉNERGIE.

    Ainsi, ils plus éloignés possèdent petite énergie, donc a déj
    eu plus temps en traitant et en dépensant l’énergie, et les mineurs
    possèdent petite énergie être leur structure moindre. Avec la ceci
    l’instabilité c’est plus grand, amenant l’astro ces conditions
    développer de grandes excentricités, grandes inclinations orbitaires
    et rotatives, et quelques-uns même avec des mouvements rétrogrades,
    qui sont éloignés et moindres et les plus instables.

    Cette forme de calcul avec le diamètre en représentant l’énergie
    peuvent être pour tous les planètes, satellites, comètes et
    asteroïdes. Du diamètre peut être trouvé la rotation, de la
    rotation la vitesse équatoriale, de la vitesse équatoriale la
    traduction, l’inclination, l’excentricité, et tous les autres
    phénomènes. Ou même peut être calculé directement.

    Est plus pratique d’utiliser le diamètre en représentant l’énergie,
    donc le diamètre peut être calculé directement dans l’astro
    elle-même.

    Tant que dans la théorie de la gravitation la masse est calculée
    avec le mouvement de l’astro dans l’espace, et à partir de l
    trouver le mouvement, c’est-à-dire, le résultat est arrangé, créé
    pour un phénomène déjà mesuré. Donc la masse est l’addition du
    diamètre avec la densité, néanmoins si nous ne savons pas droit ni
    la densité de la Terre ou de la Lune, je mange savoir la densité
    d’astros éloignées.

    SUR les MINEURS et PLUS ÉLOIGNÉS.

    Les mineurs et plus éloignés sont les plus irréguliers, ils donc
    sont ce qui possèdent mineur quantité d’énergie si en traitant.

    SUR la ROTATION.
    L’achatamento ne détermine pas la rotation, donc, l’astro qui a le
    mineur achatamento est Jupiter et produit plus la plus grande
    rotation. Mettre rotation et achatamento est produit par l’énergie de
    l’astro, représentée par diamètre et éloignement.

    SUR le PRINCIPE de l’ÉLOIGNEMENT.

    Déjà si a confirmé que la Terre diminue sa rotation dans seize
    secondes par un million d’années. Ceci confirme le principe de
    l’éloignement et la diminution de la dynamique.

    SATELLITES DE MARS.

    L’achatamento des satellites de Mars est grande d’être minime, ils
    ensuite ont passé peu de temps se forment.

    Et avec grande achatamento possède rotation minime, ce lequel
    confirme que la rotation doit l’énergie et le maser de l’astro.

    PRINCIPE DE RELACIONALIDADE.

    Il se confirme par exposé ci-dessus qu’y a une relation directe entre
    énergie, diamètre, maser, rotation, vitesse équatoriale et
    traduction entre les astros et leurs secondaires.

    SUR la LUNE.

    PARADÓXIDOS de la LUNE POUR DEÊTRE RÉPONDUE AVEC la THÉORIE De
    ENERGETICIDADE et de MASER.

    La lune est le le plus nouveau satellite du système solaire, par
    lequel la Terre déjà s’est formée du soleil quand le même se
    trouvait avec peu d’énergie, par laquelle possède peu de dynamique
    concernant son diamètre, même en étant produit par la Terre. Donc
    la planète Terra seulement est plus vieille de ce que Vénus et
    Mercúrio.

    Par que la lune possède autant irrégularités dans son orbite et
    rotation dans l’espace.
    Avec diamètre de 3.470 kilomètres, développe seulement une
    traduction de 1.03 quilometro par en second, et une rotation de 708
    heures, ou 29.6 jours terrestres.

    CALCUL POUR TRADUCTION et ROTATION.

    Diamètre du Jupiter concernant la terre 12 fois, divisé par le
    diamètre de la terre, de 11/1 = 11 fois la traduction d’EC, qui est
    plus rapide de ce que la lune, si comparé que se trouve
    approximativement dans la même éloigne et approximativement avec le
    même diamètre.

    Le même se compare entre la rotation des deux satellites.

    Ces nombres ne sont pas exacts, mais se sera nécessaire la formule
    peut être approchée.

    Comparé avec le satellite de Jupiter l’EC, il possède
    approximativement la même s’éloigne du primaire, et
    approximativement le même diamètre, se confirme qu’EC produis une
    traduction 16,8 fois plus grande de ce que la Lune. Avec ceci si
    confirme que Jupiter a produit EC avec davantage énergie dont la
    Terre a produit la Lune. Et EC – satellite de Jupiter possède
    davantage de l’énergie si en traitant, avec plus grande température,
    séismes, magnétisme et activité tectônica.

    Avec la rotation le même se répète, EC produit la vitesse de
    rotation 16,8 fois plus rapide de ce que la Lune.

    Par incroyable qui semble la différence entre rotation et traduction
    c’est minime.

    L’excentricité varie de 0.0432 à 0,0667 de degrés, et une
    inclination de 5.0 à 5,08 degrés dans l’écliptique. L’écliptique
    est le plan concernant le soleil.

    EC développe inclination orbitaire de 3 degrés et excentricité
    pratiquement nulle, confirmant aussitôt que l’irrégularité de la
    Lune suis fruit de sa condition de production d’énergie, que le
    primaire lui a accordé dans sa formation.
    Cette comparaison avec EC est importante par que les données de la
    Lune, leurs irrégularités soient fruit de la production d’énergie
    qui l’a formé et qu’il traite.

    POUR DEÊTRE PROUVÉ AVEC la THÉORIE PROPOSITION.

    Il va être prouvé par cette théorie que la Lune et leurs
    phénomènes irréguliers – grande énigme de l’astronomie, que ces
    irrégularités sont produites par la condition de production
    d’énergie dans laquelle se trouve, et comme toute astro avec peu de
    temps d’existence et jeune est très irrégulière dans leurs
    phénomènes.
    C’est ce que nous verrons en avant.

    ORBITES FLUXONÁRIAS.

    EVECÇÃO et le PRINCIPE de l’OEUF de POULE IRRÉGULIÈRE.

    Le maser solaire produit à evecção de l’orbite de la lune.

    Ce que produit le phénomène d’evecção est la variation de maser et
    l’énergie de l’astro, et la lune deêtre plus proche du Soleil,
    souffre plus l’action de la température et le maser solaire, par
    lequel son ellipse possède une plus grande variation dont autres
    satellites.

    Comme aussi son inclination est plus grande variation.

    Son éloignement, rotation et traduction aussi possèdent grande
    variation.

    COURANT et EVECÇÃO.

    Le courant de variation qui est à evecção dans l’excentricité
    varie de 0.0432 à 0,0667 degré quand à ellipse se trouve tendu,
    c’est-à-dire, jusqu’à cinquante pour cent plus de l’excentricité de
    l’ellipse quand tendue.

    SUR l’EVECÇÃO – QUAND la TERRE S’APPROCHE du SOLEIL.

    À evecção de la lune toujours c’est plus grand quand la Terre
    s’approche du soleil, avec ceci se confirme que les inégalités
    annuelles de l’evecção sont plus grandes quand la Terre s’approche
    du Soleil. Donc ce n’est pas qu’à ellipse agrandit, mais que pendant
    cette période d’approche à evecção est plus grand. C’est-à-dire,
    le maser thermique ressemeler accélère l’énergie de la lune et le
    courant aussi agrandit.
    Ce courant aussi arrive avec la terre, néanmoins est minime la
    variation.

    SUR VARIATION D’ÉLOIGNEMENT DE SATELLITES À LEURS PLANÈTES.

    Les satellites ne développent exactement le même position tournée
    au centre, comme la planète je mange de la référence,
    c’est-à-dire, y a des satellites que même à l’intérieur de
    l’ellipse développe orbite avec un côté plus proche du centre et
    l’autre plus éloigné. C’est-à-dire, la majorité des primaires ne
    se trouve pas dans le centre exact concernant l’orbite de leurs
    secondaires.
    Avec ceci si conclut que l’énergie développe le mouvement lui-même.

    Même avec l’excentricité et l’Inclination Pluton et Ils netuno
    produisent son orbite en maintenant toujours un éloignement pour un
    des côtés de l’ellipse. Ceci si confirme aussi à les satellites
    Nereida, Caronte et Febe avec leurs respectives planètes. La comète
    de Halley et l’asteroïde Quíron aussi produisent cet éloignement
    pour un des côtés concernant le Soleil.
    Cet éloignement d’un des côtés est plus grand dans les astros plus
    éloignées du soleil et de leurs primaires. C’est-à-dire,
    l’irrégularité agrandit avec l’éloignement, la dimension, la
    production d’énergie et le temps de vie.

    CONDITIONS POUR la VARIATION de l’EVECÇÃO.

    1-A evecção est plus grande quand la Terre se trouve proche du
    soleil, dans le périhélie.
    2 la lune développe ellipse imparfaite, quand la lune s’l’approche du
    Soleil, dans la lune nouvelle, est accélérée par le maser thermique
    ressemeler, faisant avec que celle-ci s’approche d’un format d’un oeuf
    de poule, toujours avec une des parties plus pontuda, que la partie
    petite pontuda est la plus proche du soleil. C’est-à-dire, une même
    orbite peut commencer avec 0.432 degré d’arc et à autre bout finir
    avec 0.0667 degré. CECI RÉPOND AUX QUATRE COMPLICATIONS DE L’ORBITE
    DE LA LUNE.

    Le PRINCIPE de l’OEUF de POULE, à ELLIPSE AVEC UNE des EXTRÉMITÉS
    PLUS PONTUDAS.

    Par que quand la lune nouvelle toujours est plus proche du soleil,
    avec ceci elle reçoit énergie thermique ressemeler, accélérant et
    en agrandissant leurs processus et production d’énergie.

    Et quand elle sort de la nouvelle et s’éloigne et commence à deêtre
    le croissant, même avec son énergie agrandie la gravitation du
    soleil l’attire et tire pour le centre, retardant son mouvement. Et
    comme la quantité d’énergie détermine circularidade de l’orbite et
    dynamique de l’astro dans l’espace, avec l’amélioration d’énergie
    dans le passage de la lune nouvelle pour le croissant fait avec que la
    lune ferme son orbite, donc la production et les processus d’énergie
    ont eu une amélioration.

    Par que après le passage proche du soleil la lune sort avec l’orbite
    fermée, qui va s’en ouvrir en passant par la pleine et dans la
    quatrième décadence déjà se trouve bien ouvert, et entre ouverte
    avec 39.5 degrés d’arc de décalage dans longitude. Par ceci nous
    avons dans l’evecção le commence de l’oeuf. Et ceci arrive
    principalement avec la lune être le satellite le plus proche du
    Soleil.

    Ainsi, ce n’est pas le Soleil qui néanmoins tend à ellipse, et
    néanmoins la comprime, mais, la condition naturelle d’énergie de la
    lune dans la production de son orbite présente dans la quatrième
    décadence. Et l’influence de l’énergie thermique du soleil qui fait
    avec l’orbite vienne à être comprimé, donc par le principe de
    circularidade la proportion dont l’énergie l’agrandit je circule de
    l’orbite tend toujours plus la perfection.
    Ainsi, avec la condition d’énergie de la lune, avec la température
    du Soleil fait avec que la lune ait de grandes irrégularités dans
    son orbite et dynamique.

    DÉCÉLÉRATION CROISSANTE DANS LE QUATRIÈME CROISSANT.

    L’autre point est la variation de la dynamique, donc dans la
    quatrième croissant lune même en recevant l’amélioration de la
    dynamique par la proximité avec le maser thermique ressemeler, quand
    elle entre dans le quatrième croissant qui va sortir de la proximité
    du soleil, la lune commence à recevoir influence de la gravitation
    solaire, retardant et en décélérant sien sortie. Il est
    décélération n’est pas uniforme, est une décélération qui va en
    perdre de l’intensité. Bientôt c’est une décélération croissante.

    ACCÉLÉRATION CROISSANTE DANS LA QUATRIÈME DÉCADENCE.
    Et quand arrive à la lune pleine déjà se trouve avec sa propre
    dynamique, au à passage pour la quatrième décadence elle passe
    être accéléré, donc la gravitation solaire ce point commence
    agir, faisant avec que la lune agrandisse sa dynamique dans
    itinéraire au soleil. Cette accélération est croissante.

    VARIATION de l’EVECÇÃO et de la DYNAMIQUE.
    1- Ainsi, nous avons une décélération croissante dans le quatrième
    croissant.
    2-Uma accélération propre dans la lune nouvelle et pleine.
    c’est une accélération croissante dans itinéraire au soleil dans la
    quatrième décadence.

    4- à ELLIPSE de l’OEUF de POULE ce N’est aussi pas UNIFORME,

    Donc le côté qui s’initie dans le quatrième croissant bien est
    fermé, comme le côté qui finit et va dans itinéraire au soleil
    la fin de la quatrième décadence plus est ouvert de ce qu’à côté
    qui s’initie dans le croissant. Bientôt, même en étant la oval plus
    précise dans une des extrémités, un des côtés aussi plus est
    fermé de ce que l’autre.

    Concernant la QUATRIÈME CROISSANT DYNAMIQUE EST RETARDÉ.
    Ainsi nous avons –

    Vitesse naturelle de la lune par sa production d’énergie, déduite de
    l’action contraire de la gravitation du soleil, est égale à la
    décélération de la lune dans le quatrième croissant.

    Concernant la QUATRIÈME DÉCADENCE la DYNAMIQUE CROISSANT et EST
    ACCÉLÉRÉE.

    Ainsi, nous avons.

    Vitesse naturelle de la lune par sa production d’énergie, ajoutée de
    l’action favorable de la gravitation du soleil, est égale
    l’accélération de la lune dans itinéraire au soleil dans la
    quatrième décadence.

    SUR la VARIATION de l’EVECÇÃO, OU du PRINCIPE de l’OEUF de POULE
    DÉFORMÉ DANS UNE de LEURS EXTRÉMITÉS.

    Déformation de l’oeuf pour à l’intérieur.

    Ainsi nous avons.

    Dans la quatrième croissant énergie naturelle de la lune s’ajoute
    avec le maser thermique du soleil en faisant avec que la lune
    développe son orbite pour à l’intérieur. Et l’oeuf de poule avec
    une achatamento pour à l’intérieur.

    Donc la lune commence à fermer son orbite encore quand dans la phase
    de lune nouvelle, donc c’est la phase le plus proche du soleil, et si
    circularidade est produit par l’énergie, ensuite plus énergie, plus
    parfaite circularidade.

    Énergie naturelle ajoutée avec l’énergie solaire est égale
    l’orbite de la lune pour à l’intérieur.

    VARIATION DE L’INCLINATION ÉQUATORIALE DE LA LUNE.

    La lune possède une variation de neuf minutes d’arc pour plus ou pour
    moins, dans leurs cinq degrés et neuf minutes d’inclination orbitaire
    moyenne, cette variation se produit dans la période de 173.3 jours.
    En étant maximum de neuf secondes pour plus quand la chaîne qui
    passe par les noeuds, passe aussi par le soleil. C’est-à-dire, rien
    n’a ne pas avoir avec action de gravitation, donc avait devrait
    arriver dans la période du périhélie de la terre, quand la terre se
    trouve plus proche du soleil, qui est pendant la lune nouvelle. Donc
    ce qui arrive que l’inclination reste pra à l’intérieur pendant les
    périodes des noeuds dans neuf minutes. Mettre ceci est une procédure
    constante de dynamique qui déjà fait partie de la nature de la
    dynamique irrégulière de la lune, produite par leur condition de
    production petite d’énergie.

    Cette variation de neuf minutes a eu une origine dont a commencé avec
    le début de l’orbite de la lune, que comme la lune s’éloigne la
    terre, elle élargit son inclination, diminuant cette variation avec
    le passage des temps et diminution la production d’énergie. Plus les
    devants verront que les astros passent par trois phases.

    Ceci arrive dans les noeuds d’éclipse, c’est-à-dire, dans le plan
    d’orbite de la lune concernant l’écliptique, donc la lune s’est
    formée de la terre, et a commencé à développer son orbite
    partir de l’alignement de la terre avec le soleil, néanmoins comme
    toute astro, il s’éloigne, perd de l’énergie et de la dynamique, et
    commence à agrandir son inclination et excentricité.

    En ceci y a une variation de neuf minutes d’arc pour à l’intérieur
    pendant les noeuds, qui se produisent à chaque 173.3 jours.
    C’est-à-dire, fuit complètement quelconque relation avec la
    dépendance de la gravitation, donc se confirme là que ce qui
    détermine cette irrégularité est la condition de l’origine de
    l’astro et la production d’énergie.

    Aussi y a un courant dans l’excentricité, dans l’éloignement et dans
    l’inclination de rotation.
    S’il était provenant de la gravitation ceci se produirait pendant
    tout périhélie de la terre, quand la terre se trouvait plus proche
    du soleil, ou même pendant la lune nouvelle.

    Bientôt, ce phénomène doit la condition de l’origine de la lune,
    donc elle a six de chaque phase de lunes qui va si en enfiler jusqu’
    arrivera au temps du noeud, c’est-à-dire, à moitié année
    d’éclipse, qui est 173,3 jours, et ce n’est pas année de 365 jours
    comme nôtre.

    Bientôt, ceci est tout un processus qui se développe pendant tout le
    temps, pour dans ce temps de noeud d’éclipse ceci vienne se produire
    dans son maximum. C’est-à-dire, il va si en enfiler lentement pendant
    173.3 jours, c’est-à-dire, cette envergamento se produit dans chaque
    comme que pendant la phase d’éclipse soit dans la position maxima
    pour à l’intérieur.

    FORMULE POUR QUE SE CALCULENT la VARIATION QUOTIDIENNE de
    l’INCLINATION.
    9/2 = 4,5 4,5/86.65 = 0,05193 minute d’arc croissant, initiant dans le
    noeud d’éclipse.

    Et 0,.05193 minutes d’arc décroissant, continuant et en fermant l’arc
    jusqu’au noeud d’éclipse et former toute variation, et refait
    nouveau la variation.
    C’est le temps que le soleil prend pour passer d’un noeud à autre,
    c’est-à-dire, à moitié année d’éclipse, qui est la période de
    173.3 jours.

    La moyenne est 5.9 degrés d’inclination orbitaire.

    Ensuite lentement s’ouvre à nouveau.

    Cette différence peut se calculer avec 4.5 minutes croissantes en
    initier dans le noeud d’éclipse qui arrive jusqu’à la moitié de
    173.3 jours, c’est-à-dire, chaque jour a une fraction croissante des
    4,5 minutes jusqu’à 86.65 jours, ensuite commence à décroître
    chaque jour divisé dans fraction des 4,5 minutes d’arc.

    Néanmoins, ce courant celle-ci en diminuant avec les millions
    d’années.
    La terre et tous les astros produisent ce courant d’irrégularités.

    DÉFORMATION DE L’OEUF POUR DEHORS.

    Dans la quatrième décadence la lune continue quelque temps, d’un
    pleine jusqu’à la décadence loin du soleil et bon temps sans
    derecevoir avec plus intensité le maser thermique ressemeler, ainsi
    avec petite énergie la lune ouvre son orbite, la déformant pour
    dehors, et oeuf de poule avec une masse pour dehors.

    Énergie naturelle, sans amélioration d’énergie solaire est égale
    à l’orbite pour dehors.

    SUR l’ÉLOIGNEMENT de la LUNE et de la TERRE, Et DE TOUTE LA D’AUTRE
    ASTROS.

    La lune possède un éloignement de la terre de quatre centimètres
    par année, et ceci déjà a été vérifié par des commentaires dans
    des éclipses précédentes. Ceci semble peu, mais si en traitant de
    milliers d’années nous voyons que la lune s’éloigne de la terre
    proportionnelle sa production d’énergie, et ne s’attire pas par la
    gravitation.

    L’ÂGE de la LUNE et de l’UNIVERS.
    Il a de confirmer aussi que la lune est bien plus vieille de ce que se
    pense, se prendre dans considération le temps d’éloignement relatif
    A quatre secondes par année, et le temps d’esferificação, ensuite,
    l’âge de la lune, de la terre et de l’univers doit être bien plus
    vieux.

    L’éloignement, le courant d’orbite et le principe de l’oeuf de poule
    qui est à evecção todos les autres astros aussi produisent,
    seulement dans échelle moindres, ils donc sont très loin du soleil.

    EXCRESCÊNCIAS de POSITION de la TERRE Concernant la LUNE, Et
    INSTABILITÉ d’ORBITE de la LUNE Concernant TERRE.

    Par qu’un côté de la terre est plus proche de la lune de ce que
    l’autre côté, donc la lune comme sera vu en avant a donné lieu de
    la terre et s’éloigne, et comme déjà a été vue origine de l’astr

  176. Geoff

    411,000 people were involved with the Apollo Program. Apollo kick started the American economy, having a direct impact on the gas industry, computing, materials development, communications…etc. Not one of the 411,000 has come forward with any real evidence that the landings were faked. How come the Soviet tracking stations at Yevpatoria, Crimea, never reported that they weren’t picking up signals from the Apollo craft? What about Jodrell Bank in England which also Doppler tracked Apollo 11 and Eagle using the Bank’s radio telescope? Why didn’t Jodrell ‘blow the whistle?’ The communications tracking Aus as well? All ‘in on the hoax’ I suppose?
    Why is it ALWAYS people who know absolute jack about Space History who are Moon Hoax ‘proponents’? Hoaxers are SUCH an embarrassment! It makes me laugh when they say the LM looks like it is a studio prop because its covered in tin foil. If anyone of these jerk-offs bothered to pick up a book they’d quickly see that lofting payloads is about mass economy. You don’t build something out of metal when you can acquire the same heat resistance properties from much lighter materials. Rocketry 101. Never the less the hoax-jokes always press on – simply for the fact that their expectations of spaceflight, ie, Startrek, Starwars, do not match the reality….!???

  177. UglyinLA

    Hi there. One question that I have not been able to get an answer on is regarding the dry lunar regolith and the footprint. Dry lunar regolith is the dust, or powder, or moon soil, if you will, that covers the xurface of the moon. Where did it come from? I ask this question because I just saw a TV show about beaches and where sand come from. Millions of years of erosion. Erosion is impossible on the moon. Nothing moves. There is no erosion. So where did that find dust come from ?? Any ideas. Thank you in advance.

  178. Jens Peter Karlsen

    “Dry lunar regolith is the dust, or powder, or moon soil, if you will, that covers the xurface of the moon. Where did it come from?”

    Easy, because there is no atmosphere asteroids and other stuff don’t burn up like it would in our atmosphere instead they hit the moon with great force raising a lot of dust.

  179. Carbon 14

    “Dry lunar regolith is the dust, or powder, or moon soil, if you will, that covers the xurface of the moon. Where did it come from?”

    to clarify the previous response. It is mainly space-dust. (i.e. dust-sized meteors) When space-dust falls onto a planet with an atmosphere, it gets lost or burned in the atmosphere possibly seeding rain, but we never notice it. On the moon, where there is no atmosphere, the dust lands on the moon and just sits there. If it stays there long enough, it will be buried by newer dust and get compacted. This is why the dust is only “soft” for a short depth, the layer below is compacted and (because it is rough and not sand-like) it easily solidifies and becomes regolith

  180. Graham Wainwright

    I was looking at the moon the other night, and I noticed that it is round and very bright. I immediatelty suspected that something was wrong and sure enough when I looked at the Nasa photos of the two spacemen running about I quickly realised that the moon is in fact dark and flat. I knew at once that the thing I’d been looking at up in the sky was a hoax perpetrated by the US government to make us think that the moon is miles up in outer space when it’s really in the Nevada desert somewhere. I phoned my best mate Flodge to tell him about it, but now I wish I hadn’t because he’s being followed by a big black man who calls himself Purple Acky. I think he’s a CIA agent and he’ll probably bash us up if we spill the beans.

  181. J-C

    I’ve seen the Mythbuster episode debunking the hoaxsters. The MB group did an amazing job addressing all of the ridiculous claims made by hoaxsters and definitively proved them wrong, wrong, wrong. It might be possible, with today’s computer technology, to ‘fake’ a landing on any alien planetary body but not with the computer technology that existed in the 1960s. For one, just look at the dust particles that project away from the wheels of the lunar rover – it is so obvious that the dust particles are moving in a lesser gravity well than the Earth’s. The wheels slip sideways slightly, yet the dust particles go flying a much greater distance than would be possible in Earth’s gravity well – not an easy thing to fake with 1960s computer animation technology. Second, Jamie and Adam demonstrated that the strange bouncing/jumping gait the astronaut’s used to move around on the Moon could not be fake within the Earth’s gravity well. In fact, they proved that the strange gait the astronauts used is the most efficient way of getting around when in the Moon’s gravity well. They tried slowing down the film and the movement looked nothing like what was filmed on the Moon. They tried tethering Adam in a suit to try to reproduce the strange gait and again the movement looked nothing like what was filmed on the Moon. They were able to reproduce the strange gait only when they were on the ‘vomit comet’ and adjusted it’s hyperbola to reproduce the Moon’s 1/6 gravity well. So hoaxsters – you are the HOAX – give it up already – we went to the Moon – period

  182. Chris

    “…yet the dust particles go flying a much greater distance than would be possible in Earth’s gravity well – not an easy thing to fake with 1960s computer animation technology.”

    There was no computer animation in the 1960s, dude. The average computer back then was barely powerful enough to do relatively simple math equations.

  183. J-C

    Chris says:
    There was no computer animation in the 1960s, dude. The average computer back then was barely powerful enough to do relatively simple math equations.

    Exactly, dude – you’ve just made my point for me – thx

  184. max

    They finally aired this episode in Australia today. If anything, Mythbusters showed us how Nasa could have faked everything, rather than debunking the myths.

  185. Aussie Bloke

    To max:
    Mate, you are an absolute embarressment to all us fair dinkum Aussis. You have missed the whole point of the Mythbusters show.
    The experiments performed by the Mythbusters team proved conclusively that people could not have faked it even if they tried.
    Have a VB on me….

  186. I’ve just finished analyzing more than 500 NASA Apollo images by Adobe Photoshop CS4.
    I enhanced the sky portion of the images.
    See for detail: http://members.shaw.ca/alex11/moonhoax/
    To my surprise I found the Moon in the sky of several images, I found shooting stars, two landing modules (in the same image) and the stars in position as seen from the Earth. And not a shred of evidence that any Man has ever been on the Moon.
    So I conclude that the images were faked by NASA. Then come the Europeans and the Japanese, and they can not see landing sites. Then comes NASA and they produce a black square and say this is the lunar rover. Would u believe yourself that to be true? I doubt it.
    Just the simple fact that 40 years ago, with very basic electronic end instrumentation technology they could land on the Moon, but it takes 40 years with very sophisticated technology and we still do not have clear images of the landing sites, proves to me that such landings never took place.

    With Respect
    Alex

  187. otakar

    There is only one thing that proves that humans hav’nt left the earth, and thats the radiation out side of the earths protective field, and astronauts are just high altitude fliers, no one technically has ever been into space. any evidence on the moon ie reflectors buggies what ever junk might be there could easily have been dumped be automaton rockets, samples too could be precured from moon via returnable rocket, but flesh and bone cant survive thats my point. also it really really dos’nt mater if man went to the moon because what did it prove! we can spend billions sending a few people in rockets while billions starve… well done. ooh one more thing why hasnt the shuttle done a fly by of the moon, the sheilding fuel capacity and technology far out strips that of the foil module of 40 years since, (but even the shuttle could not protect against the radiation of space, your talking the minimum of 6 inchs equivalant of lead….)

  188. Brian

    I have no faith in the all the shows out there that “dispel” the hoaxers. Did we go to the Moon? I don’t know. Would it take a conspiracy of the whole of NASA to cover it up? NO! A hand full at the most. After the launch, which happened who is to say, that they went all the way. Only a hand full would be needed to propel this.

    The point I am making is that the pictures the Astronauts took, 5000+/- there are quite a few that need explaining. I am not a light and shadow expert and can’t speak intelligently on this. However, there are a few shots of the Rover taken from the lander with no visible tire tracks explaining how it got to the position is was in. There is a plethora of foot prints around it, but no tire tracks. I have heard the explanation that the foot prints obscured the tracks. Ok that might be true in a small percentage but in a few of the photos where the underside of the rover is visible NO tracks can be discerned. Am I to believe that my vision is faulty?

    These pictures are form NASA and not some photo-shopped second source. Speaking of pictures, radiation is present as acknowledged by NASA and scientists. To that end HOW did all of the photos get back to the Earth with no degradation whatsoever as a result of exposure to this radiation? If you need an example, look at all of the pictures taken of Chernobyl during a fly over of that facility. Every picture taken looks grainy and has obvious signs of degradation. Are we to believe that pictures taken on the moon, traveling back (hours) on the spacecraft didn’t have one single issue with radiation exposure when pictures taken on terrestrial bound aircraft did? I can understand shielding, but not one single photo has any issues with this type of exposure. The shielding on board the module wasn’t that good, as this type of radiation degradation doesn’t require hours or days to effect film.

    NASA to date cannot give an explanation as to the trackless rover. Maybe the boys at MB can debunk this as well as the radiation effects on film.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+