Quoted:


I've never been to Iraq, and don't personally know anyone who has, therefore it must not exist.
 

Quoted:











Your analogy doesn't make sence. We KNOW that IRAQ exists, we KNOW the moon exists. There is doubt by some that the moon landing's were a hoax. All I'm saying is, should NASA ever bring any artifacts back and claim those artifacts to have been on the moon to discredit those who believe the landings were a hoax would be a waste of time. Those who believe in such a theory will continue to do so, despite whatever NASA claims was returned from the moon, should they ever do so.

July 25th, 2007
Will Mars Look as Big as the Moon on August 27? Nope

Written by Fraser Cain ShareThis

Every year around this time, an email circulates across the Internet speculating that on August 27th, Mars will look as big as the Moon in the sky. And every year, I go ahead and debunk it. Here's a link to last year's version. Once again, I'd like to inoculate all my Universe Today readers, to make sure you understand what's going on, and you're prepared to explain to your eager friends why this non-event isn't going to happen.

Say it with me. Mars won't look as big as the Moon on August 27th.


This strange hoax first surfaced on the Internet back in 2003. An email made the rounds with the following text:

  The Red Planet is about to be spectacular! This month and next, Earth is catching up with Mars in an encounter that will culminate in the closest approach between the two planets in recorded history. The next time Mars may come this close is in 2287. Due to the way Jupiter's gravity tugs on Mars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers can only be certain that Mars has not come this close to Earth in the Last 5,000 years, but it may be as long as 60,000 years before it happens again.

   The encounter will culminate on August 27th when Mars comes to within 34,649,589 miles of Earth and will be (next to the moon) the brightest object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of -2.9 and will appear 25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest 75-power magnification

   Mars will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye. By the end of August when the two planets are closest, Mars will rise at nightfall and reach its highest point in the sky at 12:30 a.m. That's pretty convenient to see something that no human being has seen in recorded history. So, mark your calendar at the beginning of August to see Mars grow progressively brighter and brighter throughout the month. Share this with your children and grandchildren. NO ONE ALIVE TODAY WILL EVER SEE THIS AGAIN

There are a few problems with this. The first problem is that the email doesn't actually mention the date; it just says August 27th. This means it can live on for years and years, going around and around the Internet, forwarded by gullible people to their friends.

The second problem is that it's wrong. Mars isn't going to be making a close approach on August 27. The close approach this email is discussing happened back in 2003. It did indeed get closer than it had in at least 50,000 years, but this was a very small amount. On August 27th, 2003, Mars closed to a distance of only 55,758,006 kilometers (34,646,418 miles). The Moon, by comparison, orbits the Earth at a distance of only 385,000 km (240,000 miles). Mars was close, but it was still 144 times further away than the Moon.

Instead of appearing as a huge red orb in the sky, Mars looked like a bright red star. Observers around the world set up their telescopes, and took advantage of this close encounter. But you still needed a telescope. And if you read the email carefully again, you'll see that it's trying to explain that.

There's an extra paragraph break. The last sentence of second paragraph is hanging. It says, "At a modest 75-power magnification ", but there's no period. The next paragraph starts up with the text, "Mars will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye." In other words, if you put one eye into the telescope and looked at Mars, and kept your other eye looking at the Moon (which isn't actually humanly possible), the two orbs would look roughly the same size.

Mars and Earth do come together every two years, reaching the closest point on their orbits – astronomers call this "opposition". And we're in one of those years. But it's not going to happen on August 27th. Instead, we'll make our opposition on December 18th, 2007. At this point, Mars will be 88.42 million km (55 million miles) – further away than its 2003 opposition.

NASA is taking advantage of the upcoming opposition, and will launch the Phoenix Mars Lander in August. The spacecraft will make its shortest possible journey to reach Mars, arriving early next year.

And by next July, it'll be time to write this article all over again.

Quoted:


I find it incredibly sad that this theory has taken root. While I understand that young people today are accustomed to all sorts of special effects it is apparent that these same young people have no idea of how physics works. They are trusting Hollywood instead of their physics books. If they had decent educations then they would realize that every single one of the hoax arguments fail on tangible, proven evidence. In fact, many of the counter-intuitive items actually support the fact we landed there upon closer inspection because if it was hoaxed the hoaxers would have made the mistake to make it look intuitive.



It is sad that America's (and mankind's) greatest achievement is not understood by so many.

Quoted:

I want you to read this page by a geologist who personally examined the moon rocks the astronauts brought back. Skip to the Moon Rocks section towards the bottom if you like:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm

   

Quoted:







Your analogy doesn't make sence. We KNOW that IRAQ exists, we KNOW the moon exists. There is doubt by some that the moon landing's were a hoax. All I'm saying is, should NASA ever bring any artifacts back and claim those artifacts to have been on the moon to discredit those who believe the landings were a hoax would be a waste of time. Those who believe in such a theory will continue to do so, despite whatever NASA claims was returned from the moon, should they ever do so.

Quoted:






Actually, NASA could claim anything. How are we supposed to know whatever it is they bring back was actually on the moon or not? I haven't been up there to take a look around, and I know nobody here has, so no, I wouldn't necessarily call that definite proof of previous moon explorations. JMHO FWIW.

Quoted:





CUZ.

Pure garbage landing on the moon.

I, man, you may recognize the person on the moon.

They may go to the Earth.

However, the government of all the works, these people, they believe because they had to go to the moon.

If there is no reasonable evidence of how the moon landing, I LIEin 'reason for the government to tell me, please see bottom are considered.

Quoted:

Quoted:



Actually, NASA could claim anything. How are we supposed to know whatever it is they bring back was actually on the moon or not? I haven't been up there to take a look around, and I know nobody here has, so no, I wouldn't necessarily call that definite proof of previous moon explorations. JMHO FWIW.

Quoted:

Trolling.

Quoted:
I guess I will say, "huh, I didn't believe it."  If you want an appology you can go fuck yourself.

There are arguments for both sides.  I am not big on the shadows, smoke, and mirrors crap.  My points are much more simple.

1) We went there 40 years ago and decided it was gay so why go back.  Seriously, words can't describe how stupid the reasoning is behind that.
2) We are on a budget.  Seriously, words can't describe how stupid the reasoning is behind that.
3) We need to figure out how to do it with new technology.  So we did it 40 years ago, but are having a hard time doing it with thousands of times the amount of tech. at our disposal.
4) It screams coverup like the plane we shot down on Sept. 11th.

Quoted:


I've never been to Iraq, and don't personally know anyone who has, therefore it must not exist.
 

Quoted:


Cuz they will be.

The moon landing is PURE BULLSHIT.

I will admit that we may well have put a man, or men, on the moon.

They may even have come back to earth.

But the government they work for LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING and there is NO REASON to believe these people when they tell people that they went to the moon.

Without a reasonable methond of proving the moon landing, I see NO REASON to believe what the LIEin' ASS GOVERNMENT tells me.

Quoted:


Try as I might, I do not understand what the hell you're even talking about.

Quoted:


It's pretty simple really, but if you don't get it, I don't know what to tell you.

Quoted:


I guess I will say, "huh, I didn't believe it."  If you want an appology you can go fuck yourself.



There are arguments for both sides.  I am not big on the shadows, smoke, and mirrors crap.  My points are much more simple.



1) We went there 40 years ago and decided it was gay so why go back.  Seriously, words can't describe how stupid the reasoning is behind that.

2) We are on a budget.  Seriously, words can't describe how stupid the reasoning is behind that.

3) We need to figure out how to do it with new technology.  So we did it 40 years ago, but are having a hard time doing it with thousands of times the amount of tech. at our disposal.

4) It screams coverup like the plane we shot down on Sept. 11th.

Quoted:
I guess I will say, "huh, I didn't believe it."  If you want an appology you can go fuck yourself.

There are arguments for both sides.  I am not big on the shadows, smoke, and mirrors crap.  My points are much more simple.

1) We went there 40 years ago and decided it was gay so why go back.  Seriously, words can't describe how stupid the reasoning is behind that. It was stupid not to stay, but this is a government program...of course the government made the stupid decision!
2) We are on a budget.  Seriously, words can't describe how stupid the reasoning is behind that. Well, we were on a budget, especially with the cost of Vietnam. The libs wanted money for their Great Society more than for moon exploration. It seems perfectly understandible to me.  
3) We need to figure out how to do it with new technology.  So we did it 40 years ago, but are having a hard time doing it with thousands of times the amount of tech. at our disposal. On the surface this sounds like a good arguement, but it isn't when you think about it. 40 years ago we produced thousands of fighter jets in many different models. Now, only a few hundred of one model. The sad fact is that we have lost (read that word again) the manufacturing capability we had in the sixties.
4) It screams coverup like the plane we shot down on Sept. 11th. Even if we did shoot down Flight 93, proving one conspiracy does not prove another conspiracy. I find it much, much more plausible that we shot down Flight 93 because we figured out it was headed for the Capitol and we did not make that info public for fear of families getting upset.

Quoted:
I said I didn't want to argue about it.  You say they took over the plane, I say we didn't take chances.  The documentation is what is in question, that is not what should be used for the proof.  I don't know what you mean by the steel, but again that is cause I didn't pay much attention to it.  I just wrote it of as an obvious coverup and felt bad for everyone involved.

Quoted:
When we go back and we find all the crap we left there and we prove to you mental midgets that we did go, what will you come here and say ??
I expect a full apology and an admission of your boundless stupidity.
So whatcha gonna say then ?!?!?!?

Quoted:


I said I didn't want to argue about it.  You say they took over the plane, I say we didn't take chances.  The documentation is what is in question, that is not what should be used for the proof.  I don't know what you mean by the steel, but again that is cause I didn't pay much attention to it.  I just wrote it of as an obvious coverup and felt bad for everyone involved.

Quoted:







+1. "Airplanes" are all a big conspiracy!



Have you ever been on an "airplane"? And if you have, have you gottenup from your seat, opened the door and walked out on the wing? NO! Theydon't let you open the doors during the "flight" because it would be"unsafe." HA! It's because then you would see the troof!



I'm sure some people will respond by saying that they can see"airplanes" in the sky. Sure, you THINK you see "airplanes" in the sky,but have you ever actually seen one touch anything? NO! They "fly" sohigh that they can't interact with things on the ground. They againthat this is for "safety" so they won't "crash." HOW CONVENIENT!



Finally, somebody will say they've seen an "airplane" land. HA! YOUONLY THINK YOU HAVE! If you had looked closely, you would have seenwires! The "airplanes" at the "airport" are all plastic models onwires! Why do you think they only let "authorized personnel" walkaround on the tarmac? TO HIDE THE TROOF!!





 

Quoted:


Don't you observe our politicians AT ALL?   Don't you see that we have been cursed with stupid, short-sighted politicians who can't see the value of space exploration and don't want to keep spending money on it?

Our politicians got behind the moon landings/Apollo program for ONE reason:  For American pride.  Pride that we beat the Russians to the moon,
and everybody else, too.   But once we'd done that a few times they said "OK, that's enough.  No more money for you!"

Budget:  Seriously, space exploration IS expensive.  And back in the 60s and 70s,  Congress did make a reasonable effort to set a budget
and live within it.   It's not like TODAY'S congress that is willing to spend money that won't be printed until your grandkids are in a nursing home!

I agree we need to figure out how to do it with new technology. I want to be a crewman on the starship Enterprise,  or even the battlestar Galactica.
But there's no need to wait for tomorrow's new car to go driving today.    The Wright Brothers didn't wait for the jet engine to be developed,  or
the carbon fiber wing panels,  they went ahead and flew with what they had.

Today's new Ares rocket system will be more efficient and more capable than Apollo, but the fundamental principles of it are the same.  It's familiar stuff but
that isn't necessarily a bad thing.


As for a 9/11 coverup....did you forget to take your anti-crazy pills this morning, or what?   What happened is pretty well established and very well documented.

But we all know that fire can't melt steel.

http://www.cnccookbook.com/img/OthersProjects/Knives/forge_1andflux.jpg

So I guess all those forged steel articles just don't really exist.  



CJ

 

Quoted:
I'm sure that Micheal Moore will explain it to all of us in his next movie.

"Man Mission to the Moon. How Bush Fake It..."

Quoted:


If we had needed to, we actually COULD have faked the landings on his fat white cratered ass.

Quoted:







Its obvious that the troofers that believe that steel wont melt at lower dont understand anything about Eutectics..



The aicrafts are mainly composed of aluminum. Aluminum melts at a lower temperature than steel.

Once aluminum melt it becomes corosive like an acid. The steel which melts at 2400 deg. F will now melt at about 1800 deg.

You have alot of aluminum to melt the supports of the towers . Like a big bowl of acid the frame melts.



At work I saw an aluminum pen that had melted thru a steel screen and grid . Drip down onto a furnace wall rated at 5000 and melted a hole thru it. Had it been more material let say several pounds. It would have gone thru the Hot zone and into the cold zone melting its way thru steel into the water jacket of the cold zone.



Eutectics

Nasty stuff

Quoted:
I don't honestly know enough about it to have a real good opinion.  But, it just struck me as a quite odd even that the people on the plane that went down in the field as I recall:

1)  Took over the flight from the terrorists.
2)  Crashed the plane in the field.
3)  They told us this is what happened super quick after the plane crashed and pimped it so much that no one would question it.

I think we shot it down.  I don't want to argue about it and I don't really care what happened, it was just bad all around.

Quoted:
OMG a picture of a rock with a sign that says where it's from!  If I wasn't so lazy I would whip up a rock from Neptune.

Quoted:


Cuz they will be.

The moon landing is PURE BULLSHIT.

I will admit that we may well have put a man, or men, on the moon.

They may even have come back to earth.

But the government they work for LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING and there is NO REASON to believe these people when they tell people that they went to the moon.

Without a reasonable methond of proving the moon landing, I see NO REASON to believe what the LIEin' ASS GOVERNMENT tells me.

Quoted:


Why don't you just go ahead and fuck off now. You've shown your ass. We get it. You're a troll and attention whore. Goody for you.

Besides, shouldn't you be getting ready to go back-to-school shopping with your Mom? Maybe she'll let you get "big boy" jeans instead of Sears Toughskins this year.

But seriously, fuck off.
 

Quoted:

More trolling.

Quoted:



 

Quoted:



Like a broken record with this one.

Quoted:


I have come up with a new flight manifest for the Space Shuttle that will keep it flying 2 flights per year until the new vehicle is proven and ready for the next moon landing.
Since the shuttle payload bay can fit a small bus inside we can fill the bus with the non-believers and send them up on the shuttle, release the bus,  point them in the right direction and let them stage themselves on the moon surface to look around and make sure we don't try anything "funny".
That way they will be there to witness the event, of coarse after they have looked around to verify our old equipment is still there.
It is a win/win situation that will close the manned spacefight gap (I think 2 flights per year should get them all up there after a couple years) and prove that there have been Americans on the moon.

As far Mr.LIONHEART says nobody here has been up there to look around may be true, but I have met a few of the Heros that have.

so pack your lunch I'll be checking your boarding pass.

Quoted:


Your only purpose in this thread is to troll. My only purpose is to expose you as the admitted troll that you are.
 

Quoted: Besides, shouldn't you be getting ready to go back-to-school shopping with your Mom? Maybe she'll let you get "big boy" jeans instead of Sears Toughskins this year.

But seriously, fuck off.