Stop the Lunacy! 5 Mad Myths About the Moon

[snopes]

Read on for the real scoop on the moon's role in madness, the history of the moon landing, and how that whole green cheese thing got started.

http://news.yahoo.com/stop-lunacy-5-...135110161.html

[DawnStorm]

Interesting--I always wondered where the green cheese thing came from.

[DrRocket]

I have a co-worker who's firmly convinced himself the moon landings were staged hoaxes. I had one very strange conversation with him one evening, and have since refused to broach the subject.

[Richard W]

Odd, the article doesn't work for me in Firefox but it does in Chrome.

They're a bit dubious with some of the explanations though:

(In fact, dust on the moon doesn't hang in the air as it does on Earth due to a lack of gravity, so dust kicked up by the landing would have been hurled away from the Lander)

Dust doesn't hang in the air on the moon because of a lack of gravity?

I'm not sure where they get the 42% more gravitational attraction of the moon at closest approach as compared to furthest approach figure in the explanation above, either. The closest distance of the moon is 362600 km and the farthest is 405400 km (from Wikipedia). That gives a ratio of strongest : weakest of around 1.25 : 1, as far as I can see. (The square of the ratio). Which would be 25% more attraction, unless I'm missing something. That still seems a bigger difference than I'd expect but it's less than 42%.

[mags]

I would assume it doesn't hang in the air due to a lack of air, and I didn't even notice it said "gravity" when I read it.

[BrianB]

Originally Posted by Richard W

Dust doesn't hang in the air on the moon because of a lack of gravity?

I think the author of the OP screwed up here. I think she meant lack of atmosphere (i.e., what Mags said). From the wonderful moon landing hoax busting site, Clavius.org:

If an atmosphere is dense enough, it can hold small particles suspended against gravity for a short time.
{ snip }
None of that would happen on the moon because there's nothing to keep the dust particles suspended.
{ snip }
But on the moon only gravity affects them, so dust will fall immediately to the lunar surface.

The behavior of the dust in the video and film taken on the lunar surface is one of the most compelling reasons we have for believing it was shot in a vacuum.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

I had one very strange conversation with him one evening, and have since refused to broach the subject.

I think that's a good idea. I have found conspiracy theorists who believe in the really wacky conspiracy theories (e.g., holocaust deniers and moon hoax believers) are among the scariest people I've ever encountered.

Brian

[Lainie]

Especially those Holocaust deniers who are clearly denying it in order to defend the Nazis. I can't help thinking that they don't even believe their own denial, that they'd secretly be just fine with the Holocaust but know that most people wouldn't be.

[jimmy101_again]

If an atmosphere is dense enough, it can hold small particles suspended against gravity for a short time.
{ snip }
None of that would happen on the moon because there's nothing to keep the dust particles suspended.
{ snip }
But on the moon only gravity affects them, so dust will fall immediately to the lunar surface.

The behavior of the dust in the video and film taken on the lunar surface is one of the most compelling reasons we have for believing it was shot in a vacuum.

Yes. Not only does the behavior of the dust prove that it was in a vacuum but the trajectory of the dust proves that it was in a low G environment. If deniers can ever come up with an explanation of how you fake low G ...

[crocoduck_hunter]

I believe the standard "explanation" is that they used slow motion video, despite no one being able to provide a fake that looked anywhere close to convincing that way.

[DrRocket]

The moon ISN'T made of cheese???

Wallace is going to be VERY disappointed.

[Auburn Red]

"As thinly sourced as it is, the hoax theories can be frustrating to those who risked their lives to get to the moon. In 2002, Buzz Aldrin, one of the members of the original 1969 Apollo 11 mission, was dogged by conspiracy theorist Bart Sibrel at an event. When Sibrel blocked Aldrin's path and called him a "coward" and a "liar," the then-72-year-old astronaut punched Sibrel in the face."

Ah, if only Buzz could to that for every conspiracy theory. (Salutes!)

What amazes me is how many of these legends about the moon "Full moon causes madness, natural disasters cause by Supermoon, etc." are found in older legends and they are still strongly believed. So, should we run for cover when a comet appears in the sky because it's a bad omen or should we get ready for the coronation of a new king?

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by DrRocket

The moon ISN'T made of cheese???

Wallace is going to be VERY disappointed.

Na, not really, he forgot the crackers anyway.

Originally Posted by Auburn Red

...the then-72-year-old astronaut punched Sibrel in the face

Buzz is my hero.

[DawnStorm]

A Mad Talking Stamps book shows the famous stamp of Armstrong stepping on the lunar surface with a speech balloon saying: Tell Mission Control it's Roquefort. I'd link to an image, but many of them are copyrighted.