DID NASA LAND ON THE MOON ?

Just yesterday, my friend Vinay asked me a really intriguing question " Do you believe that the moon landing actually happened? " At first, it seemed obvious that we did. As I began digging deeper I noticed several strong evidence to prove that it was just staged. Some explanations by NASA were definitely strong, and some others seemed just too vague to be true.

People have gone all ballistic about how evidences point away from what NASA tries to tell us. But let's keep an open mind while reading further and also give NASA the benefit of doubt.

If I have made an errors( blatant even), kindly notify me in the comments.

I have made a list of the popular "Give Aways" and tried to find reason as to how these claims CAN BE proved wrong( i.e saying that they did land on the moon).

Let us see at the "Give Aways" :-

1. The infamous "Waving Flag" theory.

Hoax Claim :- Conspiracy theorists have pointed out that when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted the flag, it was fluttering.
As you might all know outer space has no atmosphere( no air) hence how did the flag flutter?

My Theory :- The flag was constructed in a special way for the surface of the moon. A taut wire runs end to end along the length of the flag to keep it in place without waving. Without this due to gravity the flag would just sag( and hence appear as waving).
Also, NASA claims that the flapping was caused by the astronauts struggling to plant the flag into the ground( external force causing the fluttering). In further support, they claim that the flag was rippled as it was folded during storage, and the ripples have been mistaken for fluttering of the flag.

2. Where are the stars ?

Hoax Claim  :- Another argument that people make is that, in outer space without the atmosphere, you should be able to see the stars much more clearly than from earth, but not only is this not true, there are no stars whatsoever.

My Theory :- This is the same as to how it is difficult to observe stars in the sky in big, well lit cities. The light from the sun incident on the surface of the moon is too bright for any camera to capture at a distance, it would not be possible to capture light coming from stars which are billions of miles away. Even the human eye would have to block the moon landscape to see even points of light in the sky.
The fact that all manned landings on the moon happened during lunar daytime, strongly supports this theory.

3. Different shadow lengths

Hoax Claim :- As you can see in the picture, shadows given off by astronauts are of different lengths, even though they might be standing close. People claimed this to be a faulty lighting system at the Hoax Set Up stage.

My theory :- This is similar to the situation in deserts. We can observe that our shadow lengths change as the hilly landscape( due to sand dunes) causes all sorts of changes in lengths of shadows no matter where you stand.

4. Deeper impressions by footprints than lunar module

Hoax Claim :- The Lunar Module weighed about 17 tons, yet the astronauts who walked on the moon seem to have made a deeper foot impression. How is this possible ?

Theory :- The measured weight of 17 tons is when it left earth. By the time it reached the moon, it was just 1350 kilograms. The fuel burnt from the decent stage propellant would have removed at least 9-10 tons. On top of this, the foot pads are of 37 inch diameters, which is much more compared to Neil Armstrong show span. And as we know Pressure = Force/Area. The force of the Lunar Module was distributed well enough.

NASA quotes Neil Armstrong - "the LM foot pads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches". On the other hand, the footprints of the astronauts were depressed only a fraction of an inch, although people often exaggerate their depth.


5. The C rock

Hoax Claim :- The infamous picture of a rock on the moon which contains the letter "C" stamped on it. This gives the impression that the moon rocks are nothing but simple old stage props and some designer forgot to remove the C.

Theory :- NASA claims that the C is just a photographic glitch, a hair which got in during the development process.
But not a convincing enough theory.


I have barely touched the tip of the iceberg, and there are hundreds of these hoax claims.

These links will definitely intrigue you even further. Feel free to discuss with me in the comments.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

Edit :
An interesting video that my friend pointed out.

ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF SPEECH

We as human beings have this innate quality to express ourselves, and more importantly express ourselves freely. But in reality, this is not realized. Every society places some limits on the extent to which we can exercise speech, as speech always happens in a context of competing values. In context when opinions differ and views vary.

In status quo different societies have different philosophies regarding freedom of speech. However, there are 3 approaches adopted.

1. Allow absolute free speech, whereby an individual may say whatsoever he deems fit and has complete immunity from prosecution as a result of it.
2. Dismiss notion of free speech thereby censuring and molding the expressions of individuals and society so as to prevent the criticism of the state.
3. Allow free speech, but with reasonable limitations (Like in India). The yardsticks to define what is reasonable are various and varied.

Absolute freedom of speech is not only important and essential for the good of the individual but also vital for societal evolution.
Many opinions come up, and the opinions contrary to the established philosophies must not be curbed, instead they should be allowed and encouraged. Only by this way will these opinions evolve through critique and revaluation and if they don't accommodate the changing sensibilities they must be considered redundant.

Suppressing views based on grounds of being wrong or counterproductive is in itself harmful as it will lead to monopolization of judgement as to what is "okay" and what is "not okay" by society.
Society exists to serve individuals. Therefore, individuals speech must not be subjected to collective's approval.

Truth can only be established through discussion and it remains the truth only  as long as it is disproved. Discussion is very vital as it enhances the society's understanding of what they stand for as well. It also breeds "greater tolerance for intolerance".
 History is evidence to how things that are deemed eternal truths by one generation might have been considered to be absurd by another. The level of acceptance and tolerance towards a particular view point is subjected to the context and the situational sensibilities.

Now let us consider extreme events which involve outright outrageous matters such as castism, sexism etc. Individuals must be allowed to air opinions of even such a nature. Allowing them to express themselves will enable societal discussions on the matters they propagate. Censuring the individual will make the individual cling on to this opinion even more strongly and moreover will lead to others repressing that opinion even further. In an environment where the freedom of speech is absolute, the society will get desensitized towards expressions engineered to provoke a reaction among the masses.

As long as a thought exists in an individual's mind, he or she will desire to express it. As long as this thought exists, the only rational thing to be done is to allow him/her to express it, so that he/she might share the merits of the thought or stand a chance to learn its demerits by virtue of the crowd reaction to his thought.

What is your stand on "Allowing Absolute Freedom of Speech" ?

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to death your right to say it.

                                                                                                  - Voltaire

THE TROLLEY PROBLEM

Imagine that you’re at the controls of a railway switch and there’s trolley out of control coming. The tracks branch into two, one track that leads to a group of five people, and the other to one person. If you do nothing, the trolley will smash into the five people. But if you flip the switch, it’ll change tracks and strike the lone person. What do you do? 

People who consider that utility should be the utmost cause for action, say that the single person should be killed. Humanitarians, because they see people as ends and not means, would argue that you can’t treat the single person as a means for the benefit of the five. So you should do nothing.

What would you do?