Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:25 amNS Decides? I don't like the sound of that
I wouldn't trust NS to decide my lunch
I wouldn't trust NS to decide my lunch
Exactly, that's what Plato said.
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Moon landing: real or fake? NS decides...
Page 2 of 8
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:25 amPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:29 amPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:44 amPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:45 amI'm largely of the opinion that it's real (well over 90% sure), but there are a couple things that can't be explained. The multiple light sources being one, the wind on the flag, and (on later missions with the Rover), the fact that speeding up the film makes it look like real life on earth.
However, even if these are points for fakery, how do we explain away the fact that 13 manned rockets were launched, and most of them returned to Earth?
However, even if these are points for fakery, how do we explain away the fact that 13 manned rockets were launched, and most of them returned to Earth?
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:57 amMike the Progressive wrote:It's fake, obviously. Just as 9/11 was an inside job, Obama was born in Indonesia and Kenya at the same time, and Kennedy was assassinated....by aliens.
Not true, Kennedy was killed by Barack Hitler Obama.
------
I think that the moon landing were real but we can't know for sure. I don't know, seems too real for it to be a fake.
But, how do I know for sure?
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:10 pmSamozaryadnyastan wrote:I'm largely of the opinion that it's real (well over 90% sure), but there are a couple things that can't be explained. The multiple light sources being one,
What multiple light sources?
the wind on the flag,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8
and (on later missions with the Rover), the fact that speeding up the film makes it look like real life on earth.
What?
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:14 pmIn some shots, there are objects with shadows in multiple directions, which typically only happens if there's more than one light source.
When he tries to plant the flag, the flag starts flapping about. How have you not seen it, it was like the argument at the time for the idea it was fake?the wind on the flag,
The flag wasn't moving.
If you double (or something) the speed on the film, it just looks like a guy jumping about like he's playing Halo, and another guy driving a dune buggy. And the thing is, it doesn't look sped up either, it just looks... normal.and (on later missions with the Rover), the fact that speeding up the film makes it look like real life on earth.
What?
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:16 pmThis. I only see single shadows...
the wind on the flag,
The flag wasn't moving.
Oh, it was. The answer is kinetic energy. Because there is no atmosphere on the moon, when you put kinetic energy into an object, unlike on Earth where the energy dissipates into the environment due to particle collisions, on the moon, it just keeps going. No wind needed, just a basic understanding of high-school Physics
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:19 pmSamozaryadnyastan wrote:In some shots, there are objects with shadows in multiple directions, which typically only happens if there's more than one light source.
The sun is a sphere. Not a flashlight. The moon is also spherical. The light goes in many direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0
When he tries to plant the flag, the flag starts flapping about. How have you not seen it, it was like the argument at the time for the idea it was fake?
That's momentum, as you can see from the video. Because it is on a "vacuum" and there's no force to stop it from moving (it has to get there SOMEWHERE), it continuously moves.
Come on. Basic fucking physics. An object will keep moving if nothing stops it. One of Newton's law.
If you double (or something) the speed on the film, it just looks like a guy jumping about like he's playing Halo, and another guy driving a dune buggy. And the thing is, it doesn't look sped up either, it just looks... normal.
I'm not sure about that one, but I'll let someone else do it.
One of my friends on a forum I go to thinks the moon landing was faked, esp. becuase it looks like it was slowed down and they used wires to simulate the low gravity. For this theory to be correct, all of the footage (as opposed to a cherrypicked second of it) would have to be the same way. So here's a minute of footage that was sped up by a factor of 2. I'd speed up it by about 2.45 (since, then, all of the accelerations would be mathematically equivalent to Earth's gravity) but Windows Movie Maker didn't let me do it. So, imagine the footage being sped up just a little bit faster.
He's a complete tool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkLjVw-a9w0
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:20 pmAeronos wrote:Oh, it was. The answer is kinetic energy. Because there is no atmosphere on the moon, when you put kinetic energy into an object, unlike on Earth where the energy dissipates into the environment due to particle collisions, on the moon, it just keeps going. No wind needed, just a basic understanding of high-school Physics
I meant it doesn't get moved by the wind because there's no wind. I slept at 1 and woke up at 6. Give me a break.
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:26 pmSamozaryadnyastan wrote:I'm largely of the opinion that it's real (well over 90% sure), but there are a couple things that can't be explained. The multiple light sources being one, the wind on the flag, and (on later missions with the Rover), the fact that speeding up the film makes it look like real life on earth.
However, even if these are points for fakery, how do we explain away the fact that 13 manned rockets were launched, and most of them returned to Earth?
Yes, actually, they can be explained.
Multiple light sources: light reflecting from the highly reflective surface.
"Wind" on the flag: on a very still day, or indoors, attach a piece of cloth framed in wire to a stiff metal pole, then touch the pole. Does the cloth move? Without wind? You must be faking it!
ANd "speeding up the film"? What?
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:29 pmFarnhamia wrote:
ANd "speeding up the film"? What?
Apparently, if you speed up the thing, it'll look like they had the acceleration of Earth's gravity.
Well derp, it's sped up.
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:30 pmThe Matriarchians wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:It's fake, obviously. Just as 9/11 was an inside job, Obama was born in Indonesia and Kenya at the same time, and Kennedy was assassinated....by aliens.
Not true, Kennedy was killed by Barack Hitler Obama.
------
I think that the moon landing were real but we can't know for sure. I don't know, seems too real for it to be a fake.
But, how do I know for sure?
You know how? Think about how many people would have to be involved to carry out a secret plan like that, with all the preliminary orbital flights and the media hype. Then think about how it would take only one or two people to blow the whole damn thing wide open. It would have made beautiful election campaign material, if nothing else. "THEY FAKED THE MOON LANDING!"
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:30 pmPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:32 pmPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:37 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0
This is the video I was looking for. I was hoping for a longer version, but 7 seconds is apparently all we're getting. It looks very earth-like.
I never said I didn't support the moon landing (in fact, if you look back, I said I was very sure that it was real), I merely said there were (occasionally) unexplained inconsistencies.
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:40 pmSamozaryadnyastan wrote:Norstal wrote:Apparently, if you speed up the thing, it'll look like they had the acceleration of Earth's gravity.
Well derp, it's sped up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0
This is the video I was looking for. I was hoping for a longer version, but 7 seconds is apparently all we're getting. It looks very earth-like.
But it's not, because if you speed up the other parts of the video, it won't look "earth-like".
Also, pay attention to the dust cloud, as one YouTube commenter noted. That wouldn't happen on Earth.
I never said I didn't support the moon landing (in fact, if you look back, I said I was very sure that it was real), I merely said there were (occasionally) unexplained inconsistencies.
Dispelling common misconceptions about science is part of my duties. Otherwise, we built the space shuttle for nothing.
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:43 pmSamozaryadnyastan wrote:Norstal wrote:Apparently, if you speed up the thing, it'll look like they had the acceleration of Earth's gravity.
Well derp, it's sped up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0
This is the video I was looking for. I was hoping for a longer version, but 7 seconds is apparently all we're getting. It looks very earth-like.
I never said I didn't support the moon landing (in fact, if you look back, I said I was very sure that it was real), I merely said there were (occasionally) unexplained inconsistencies.
It was 1970s technology. Ain't gonna look like a Pixar movie, you know. Here's what looks like a very good site: http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:55 pmIT'S LIES! ALL LIES!
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:17 pmSamozaryadnyastan wrote:I'm largely of the opinion that it's real (well over 90% sure), but there are a couple things that can't be explained. The multiple light sources being one, the wind on the flag, and (on later missions with the Rover), the fact that speeding up the film makes it look like real life on earth.
However, even if these are points for fakery, how do we explain away the fact that 13 manned rockets were launched, and most of them returned to Earth?
That's not wind. It's movement created when planting the flag, the fact that their in space makes the flag keep moving for longer mimicking wind.
The moon landings are completely real. If they were fake then why did the Soviet Union not call out the United States? It would of been a greater embarrassment then the entire U2 Spy incident, the Soviet's would of easily jumped on such propaganda.
Anyone who states otherwise is an idiot and clearly needs to sense beaten into them, literally with batons.
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:29 pmThe moon lands are indeed real, but I know that broadcasters have simulated the event as part of a promotion for the coverage. In 1969, BBC One did such thing to promote the Moon landing coverage. The footage consisted of "astronauts" unloading a colour TV camera and setting up an antenna. At worse, such scenes might have been mistaken for the real footage.
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:31 pmNightkill the Emperor wrote:IT'S LIES! ALL LIES!
We are talking about the moon landing, damn it, not the Jewish controlled media! Er, I mean, the "lame-stream" media.
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:36 pmThere's an idea in there somewhere..
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:55 pmI could go either ways in view on the moon landing, both sides are compelling, its one of those things that I choose not to worry about, seeing as it wouldn't make a difference nowadays whether it was true or not.
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:01 pmHallistar wrote:I could go either ways in view on the moon landing, both sides are compelling
Not if you know actual science.
Why does NS decide, exactly? Do we have some sort of power over the truth that I wasn't aware of?