Smithsonian Channel - "Denying The Moon Landings"

[onager]

Just caught this show tonight. Outstanding! First, Susan Spencer interviews various NASA personnel in a mini-history of the organization.

Then opens a giant can of whoop-ass on the moon landing deniers.

I mean, LITERAL whoop-ass. Twice, we get to see the great video clip of hoax-huckster Bart Sibrel being punched by Buzz Aldrin. Aldrin is a lot shorter and older than Sibrel, and still nearly knocks him on his butt.

Also, Sibrel pontificating to astronaut Alan Bean about how we never landed on the moon. To which Bean thoughtfully responds, "That's bullshit."

The show even fingers the cause of recent Landing-Denial: the 2001 TV show Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon?" Shown on...aw, no fun, you already guessed...Fox.

The show is airing several more times this week. Full schedule here:

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/site/sn/show.do?episode=137462#smithsonian-spotlight-denying-the-moon-landings-sneak-peek

I often see Aldrin's name used in Xian propaganda. But in this Wall Street Journal interview, he seems at least somewhat hesitant on the subject:

WSJ: Why do people sometimes believe that science and religious faith are incompatible?

Mr. Aldrin: I don't know. One of the best guides of philosophy is Einstein's essays in which he talks about religions of fear that evolve into religions of morals and ethics. Then he discusses a higher level of cosmic awareness of the universe, and the possibility of dealing with other living creatures in an increasingly mature way. Unfortunately, we aren't very mature, for selfish, greedy reasons.

[charlie]

1. Poor Russians

They get beat to the moon. Then, ordinary God-fearing Americans with Edmund Scientific catalogs and Radio Shack equipment prove they didn't.

No wonder they've been quiet for 40 years. They must still be mortified.

YouTube comment on Aldrin popping Sibrel.... :D

"This is totally faked. Buzz Aldrin's fist NEVER landed on that douche's face. We're being lied to."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4
(21sec)

[progressoid]

12. That video never fails to amuse me.

:)

[Deep13]

2. Right, tell the guy who spent two days on the moon...

...that humans have never been there.

[onager]

3. What amazes me...

Is "two key pieces of evidence" the deniers use:

1. "No stars! The sky on the moon is pitch black!"
2. "The American flag is flapping in a breeze...probably from a fan in the movie studio!"

So NASA spends millions of dollars creating this elaborate hoax...AND WOULDN'T NOTICE THOSE TWO THINGS?

Maybe the NASA studio moon movie ran over-budget, and couldn't be fixed during the editing.

[Deep13]

4. Right, two things that are actually consistent with a moon landing...

...if considered with all the facts.

Take any pocket camera and shoot the full moon. The result is a very bright moon and no stars. You need a timed exposure for the stars because they are so dim. Properly exposed stars would make the moon washed out in glare. Had stars been visible in those lunar pictures, it would have been a cause for suspicion.

The flag was flapping because the astronaut holding it was swinging it around. Duh. Once it had been planted, the film shows that it stopped flapping. There is no air on the moon, but there is inertia.

[laconicsax]

5. I wasn't aware that there were moon landing denial arguments that aren't consistent...

with what one would expect from an actual moon landing--the nature of footprints in regolith, shadows and highlights on an uneven, reflective surface, using a massive rocket, grainy, time-delayed footage, etc.

[realisticphish]

6. there are actually

people that argue that the perfect parabola of material from under the wheels of the rover proves it was done on earth. Because in low gravity it should all float away or something :eyes:

[laconicsax]

8. I'm not sure that counts.

One would expect perfect parabola resulting from no atmosphere, and the gravity bit...well, they're already proven idiots, and this just adds more evidence to the pile.

[realisticphish]

9. well that's the thing

the perfect parabola PROVES THE OPPOSITE OF THEIR POINT

[onager]

7. The show explained all that very well...

Not that it will do a damn bit of good.

As one of the interviewed astronauts said: "Well, duh! We can't see the stars on earth when the sun is shining, either."

The flag: NASA wanted it fully visible at all times, stripes and stars, and always "unfurled." So it was attached to a rigid framework. Which, as you note, made it appear to be flapping around when the astronauts were planting it.

BTW, as the show proves, NASA hasn't learned its lesson. The obviously faked Lunar Reconnaisance Observer missions in 2009 took some great photos of the space junkyards on the moon. The Moon Rover and other lunar litter are clearly identifiable.

Which was already covered when we faked the Apollo XII mission. While he was moseying around the lunar surface/movie studio, Alan Bean photographed the abandoned Apollo XI gear.

[Deep13]

10. Bean and Conrad shot the Surveyor probe...

...which landed three years earlier. They brought back a piece of it for NASA scientists.

XII landed in the Ocean of Storms which is a few hundred miles away from the Sea of Tranquility.

[SheilaT]

11. Heck, you don't need a full moon to test this.

Simply go out at night, any clear night with lots of stars and take a photograph of the sky, with anything at all that is lit up in the foreground. No stars. I kind of think if you simply tried taking a photo of the night sky itself that unless you have some kind of a long exposure, as in at least several seconds, no stars will show, but I haven't checked that out myself, and it's currently 1pm where I am.

Added on edit: The reason know-nothings thing the absence of stars in those photos from the moon means anything, is that Hollywood will add stars to the night sky when action is taking place outside at night. Not sure how they do it, but it's probably quite easy, and as a consequence most people have no clue that stars simply don't show up on film that readily.