Yeah, my personal Hubble is out of whack, so…
I know you can’t see that with a telescope, but all the other
good dopers already proved it before I logged in.
It’s amazing to me that pro-conspiracy people
believe it’s possible to pay off thousands of NASA workers
and construct a weightless studio where even dust particles
float correctly to fake a real moon landing.
I was initially sarcastic. Apologies.
There is also a fair amount of overlap between these groups and YECs. (Whether or not one finds that surprising depends on one’s opinions of the various groups, of course.)
I’m not surprised, though I perceive most YECs to be Republicans or at least conservative, while most 9/11 headcases I’ve come across are disillusioned liberals. I do realize David Ray Griffin and Stephen Jones are religious conservatives and Alex Jones is some bastardization of a conservative, but their followers haven’t been, IME. They’re an anomalous lot by their very nature, I guess.
I’ve never been able to understand why the moon-landing deniers thought we simply did not have the technology to go to the moon and back. It was a breathtaking achievement, yes, but really, except for the odd chance of some sort of accident, there was no question about whether it could be done.
I think you’re making the mistake of assuming they ever thought about it. Tinhatters will absolutely not let facts, logic, or any manner of reality get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. It would be a ghastly affront to their every fiber.
Actually, it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with a sort of paranoia that distrusts authority in general and “government” in particular. Their reasoning, in syllogistic form:
Government lies about everything
NASA, a government agency, says we went to the moon
Ergo, since they must be lying, it didn’t happen
As I think about it, they seldom argue that the feat was impossible. Instead they claim to have found all sorts of “evidence” that it was faked. It’s not about facts; it’s about their own presuppositions.
Stray thought: OK, let’s grant that “they” built a huge subterranian sound stage/vacuum chamber. How’d they generate that 1/6 gravity effect???
This would explain why they were all sweating like bullets whilst performing " Joy To The World".
The moon dust not being kicked up should kinda ice it. Also, explain the composition of the moon rocks. Not really terrestrial in nature, are they?
Cartooniverse
I do know if this is true or not. Almost everyone I know is a YEC but I know no one who thinks we faked the moon landing. Now of course this does nothing to prove anything because it is possible that 90 percent of moon hoaxers are YEC, but I have trouble buying it.
again I ask
why the need for 24 th century technology when it comes to AC?
A gazillion other reasons why the “fake” is harder than doing it for real?
Sure.
A “big ass” vacuum chamber along with some creative filming? Not so hard.
Because otherwise, the heat has to go somewhere else. You can’t just hide a community of hundreds of people underground and expect it not to show up on Soviet thermal satellite photography. Not to mention the heat given off by all the vacuum pumps. You simply couldn’t hide a facility like that from the Russians, underground or otherwise.
Of course it’s hard, if it’s a REALLY big-ass vacuum chamber, which is what we’re talking about. The biggest ‘publically acknowledged’ vacuum chamber, the one NASA uses to test its spacecraft in, is about 100 feet wide. A moon rover is 11 feet long, which means you’d be able to drive one about 9 car-lengths in there before hitting a wall. The size of the structure necessary to house a convincing “moon soundstage” would have to be at least an order of magnitude larger, I’d guess.
What HEAT?
there is nothing INHERENT about a big vacuum chamber that implies large amounts of HEAT.
In your scenario “we” are underground. Natural AC if you dont pack people in like sardines. Or run a fusion reactor…or whatever.
The heat issue it like arguing the Death Star is impossible because what would you do with all the sewage.
One might think so, but people radiate quite a lot of heat all by themselves. And if you want it comfortable inside, then you have to pump that heat outside. Also, all the air has to be pumped out of this vacuum chamber, and that’s going to generate more heat. Additionally, this entire setup is supposed to be a huge movie soundstage. Movie soundstages require lots and lots of lighting, which means even more heat.
Now, I’m not about to derail a perfectly sensible discussion about the moon hoax conspiracy to talk about something silly like the Death Star.
Anyway, everybody knows what happens to that sewage. The sludge monster eats it.
Do some back of the envelope calcs and get back to me.
Again…there are a gazillion reasons why faking a moon landing is highly improbable.
But the AC units from a hidden gianormous vacuum chamber aint one of em. Unless you have the starship enterprise looking for it.
YEC = Young Earth Creationist ?
I know one of those, but he has learned to not talk about it in polite company.
Believe it or not, even the Dawes limit, or any other limit on the finite resolution of a finite sized optical instrument isnt true.
It really boils down to a signal to noise ratio and (i think) computing power.
Basically, you can resolve ANY angular resolution you want IFFF you are willing to take a long enough exposure.
Thats not to say once you’ve exceded Dawes limit things don’t all of a sudden get alot harder than just taking a nice photo.
Just trying to be thorough here 
IFFF = If and only if, and I really mean it?
<geek>It was a dianoga.</geek>
Yes
believe it or don’t
I do not have the cites handy. But my recollection is from RECOGNIZED peer reviewed optics journals.
Optics is one of my “things” so to speak, so anything that claims to break a limit gets my interest.
The article/articles I remember are from most likely the JOSA or Optics Newsletters.
The keyword was super resolution IIRC.
The premise was you could resolve any two point sources, much closer than Dawes limit. Again the big IFFF IIRC was the signal to noise ratio.
The OTHER gotcha, IIRC, was your aperture was not just a big wide open lens or mirror. The aperture was modified so that the size of the airy disk of a point source in the center of the field of view was greatly reduced. The downside was diffraction scattered light all the hell over the place not that far from the center of the field of view.
So, great for resolving two point sources. Pretty much sucks for real world pretty pictures.
IFFFFFF you really want cites, I TRY to dig em up.
But something in a major USA optics journal sometime between the 60s and 80’s should get you there.
And Vader ate the sludge monster, which is why he was so mean.
I see to recall that the problem was supposed to be radiation, not technology. The deniers somehow thought the Van Allen belts would prevent anyone from going through them without dying.
Still, some people have a sort of species inferiority complex. One wacko out here, who was actually CEO of a software company, was convinced that Intel got its technology from space aliens. Then there are those convinced Egyptians couldn’t have been smart enough to erect the pyramids without alien assistance. Maybe the deniers are in that camp.
