anders84 skrev:
Hursomhelst läs argumenten innan du påstår att det är trams.
Var det där riktat till mig?
Då kan jag ju infa dig om att det gått dokumentärer på tv och skrivits en del om det i dagspress om denna konspirations teori.
Sajten du länkade till gav inget nytt ljus på det hela. Men visst är den underhållande.
anders84 skrev:
Är också undrande till det här med spåren som bilen lämnade på månen, enligt sidan jag länkade till måste det finnas vatten i marken för att kunna lämna ett sådant spår.
Angående spåren, läser du inte mina länkar?
"While we addressed the power of the LM descent engine in our first installment, we did not address the issue of the footprints. In essence, the critics' argument is that footprints like those seen on the Apollo photographs can only occur if the ground has moisture in it; they then compare the "lunar footprints" to those that appear on Earth in wet sand. At first, this may seem like a logical argument. However, it is dependent -- as so many of the Moon Hoax arguments -- on an assumption that the Moon and Earth are essentially the same place. Critics wrongly assume (since they obviously haven't been there!) that since there is no moisture on the Moon, footprints must fill-in -- like they do in bone dry, sandy deserts here on Earth.
But, of course, in this area too their poor understanding of space physics is glaringly apparent; there are other well-known bonding agents that can create coherent, stable footprints in a vacuum, like those seen in the Apollo photographs taken on the lunar surface.
The lunar surface is pretty much made up of a variety of materials that fall under the general category of "silicates." Silica has a natural tendency/ability to bond with other silica, making large "chains" of atoms and molecules. When a meteorite impacts a body (or, in our model, a massive glass-based protective lunar structure), a lot of the energy released goes into fracturing the surrounding structure, if not its rock foundation. These fractures are, in fact, breaks in molecular bonds in the artificial and naturally-occurring minerals. These fractures, in turn, leave many "exposed" bonds. On Earth, these fractures are quickly filled by oxygen in the atmosphere (a process called "oxidation" or "weathering"). With a total lack of oxygen (such as on the lunar surface), these molecules with bonding potential simply have nothing to attach to ... until something changes (an impact event) and places two molecules or atoms side-by-side. This is how, in the absence of a "wetting agent" (like water), this dust (the lunar soil) can form not only "large clumps" -- but stick to itself like a mold, forming "mirror images" of any outside "deforming structures" (like spacecraft landing pads, or the cleats of astronaut boots). The consistency of this pulverized dust, incessantly battered over literally eons, is finer than talcum powder or cement dust. This incidentally is exactly how the astronauts described the lunar surface dust ... like "talcum powder or wet sand ..."
