Soviets on the Moon, 1965

Submitted by: MacGuffin 4 years ago Funny

I think it"s fake, but I"m not sure.
There are 47 comments:
Male 12,365
[quote]That`s why we always see the same side of the moon. Because they formed and cooled together, the side of the moon that always faces us is actually more dense. More dense = greater gravitional pull.[/quote]

I don`t think so. Tidal locking looks like a better explanation to me. That can happen with any object orbiting another, even if one forms completely seperately and is later captured.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I think the most recent theory on moon formation is that if formed at the same time as the Earth. As I understand it, as the Earth was forming(before it cooled), there was a cataclysmic event that caused a large chunk of the still cooling Earth to be ejected into space.[/quote]

It`s generally thought to be a collision with another protoplanet, probably with a mass roughly the same as that of Mars today. A reasonable approximation can be made for the amount of kinetic energy of the object and some parameters can be set for probable speed and mass. The very early solar system would have been a very violent place, with lots of collisions - there`s no reason why each planet would form neatly by itself with nothing else forming anywhere nearby or on an intersecting orbit.
0
Reply
Male 50
I think the most recent theory on moon formation is that if formed at the same time as the Earth. As I understand it, as the Earth was forming(before it cooled), there was a cataclysmic event that caused a large chunk of the still cooling Earth to be ejected into space. That mass formed into the moon. That`s why we always see the same side of the moon. Because they formed and cooled together, the side of the moon that always faces us is actually more dense. More dense = greater gravitional pull. There`s a bit of a wobble effect because the balance isn`t perfect but we pretty much see the same 48% of the moon all the time.
0
Reply
Male 1,284
someone is snorting to much dust here
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angillion: The rocks collected from the moon are Basalts billions of years old. Basalts are created from vulcanism.

Dust compaction would form sandstone like rocks. I`ve felt a few samples of moon rocks and can assure you that they were not sandstones.[/quote]

Are you even aware that you`re now arguing that the entire moon is made up of a layer of dust about an inch thick *and nothing else*?

Nobody, absolutely nobody, is arguing or has ever argued that the moon is made up of recently compacted dust. Your claim that it`s the consensus amongst scientists has no connection to reality.

You are talking crap to such an extent that the only two possibilities are that you are delusional and hallucinating (if you believe you have seen scientists saying what you claim to have seen them saying) or a liar (if you don`t).
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Seriously, CrakrJak...even the other devout creationists who have no idea what reality is have been forced to drop the babble about lunar dust. Why are you still peddling that lie? Do you think some people might accept your word on pure faith and not check anything, ever? Do you believe it yourself? I am slightly curious. Although it`s a moot point as I can`t trust your answer.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]landing a probe is one thing, and none of them sent back data indicating dust depth.[/quote]

Apart from the fact that they did. At least, they did in the real world. I`ve no idea what happened in CrakrLand.

[quote]You`re trying to engage in revisionist history if you claim that the scientific estimates were not 8 inches (or more) of dust. [/quote]

It`s wildly amusing that you`re talking about revisionist history when almost everything you write is fictional.

You`ve taken on faith an entirely fictitious fantasy world in which you get to create what other people have said.

It`s not reality. It won`t become reality regardless of how often you repeat it.

I don`t know whether you`re genuinely delusional or if you`re lying for propaganda purposes and frankly I don`t care which it is. You`re wrong. You will remain wrong no matter what you pretend other people have said.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Dust compaction would form sandstone like rocks. I`ve felt a few samples of moon rocks and can assure you that they were not sandstones. [/quote]Wow, you`ve handled rocks.

I`ll say this slowly Crakrjak, so you can process it. And this coming from a PhD Geologist who has earned his stripes:

You think you know what you`re talking about. But I assure you. You don`t.
0
Reply
Male 621
CrakrJak: "The problem is this, the low dust level doesn`t agree with 1.6 billion year old solidified basalt rock on the moon."

The problem is, that most of the basalts on the moon are actually 3.16 to 4.2 billion years old, with only the youngest basalt formed by impacts in craters being 1.2 billion years old or older.

Wikipedia: Lunar mare
Fleming Group: Radiometric Ages of Some Mare Basalts Dated by Two or More Methods (all lunar samples show between 3.09 and 3.92 billion years old)

Seriously, stop cribbing your data from creationists sites. Their work is notoriously shoddy.
0
Reply
Male 621
@CrakrJak: I didn`t say that the *surface* of the moon was 4.5 billion years old, I said that the *moon* is around 4.5 billion years old.

As the surface of the moon is constantly collecting dust, it is not one single age.

The "low dust level" there is perfectly in agreement with current estimates of lunar dust accumulation, not your creationist manufactured and pre-1970s estimates. Seriously, what exactly do you think the current dust accumulation rates are?

Oh, and *no*, dust accumulation rates are *not* constant. Events can occur that increase or decrease the local amount of cosmic dust. Not to mention the fact that it varies throughout the universe.

Here`s another article you won`t read that proves you wrong.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HiEv: [quote]Dust accumulation is a mere pittance compared to the amount of materials during early solar system formation.[/quote]

Cosmic dust accumulation is a constant number. Sure rock and gas accumulates to become planets, moons, rings, etc. but that has no bearing on the constant cosmic dust level of the universe.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HiEv: The surface of the moon is not 4.5 billion years old, the surface it relatively young. The surface, of the moon, was molten for most of it`s existence and became basalt. After the surface cooled is when the dust started to collect and there is no evidence for compaction of that dust layer afterwards.

The problem is this, the low dust level doesn`t agree with 1.6 billion year old solidified basalt rock on the moon.
0
Reply
Male 621
Ugh... and NO, "high dust accumulation" is not needed for planet formation. Planet formation happens when gravity pulls large amounts of cosmic debris, primarily from earlier supernovas in the modern area, and that debris is spun into a disc where the sun(s), planet(s), moon(s), and other objects can potentially form. Dust accumulation is a mere pittance compared to the amount of materials during early solar system formation.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angillion: The rocks collected from the moon are Basalts billions of years old. Basalts are created from vulcanism.

Dust compaction would form sandstone like rocks. I`ve felt a few samples of moon rocks and can assure you that they were not sandstones.
0
Reply
Male 621
CrakrJak: "But as it turned out science got it wrong, they found out the moon isn`t as old as they thought it was, the dust on the moon is less than an inch deep."

Oh fer... Read a modern science book!

Yes, they originally overestimated the depth of the dust on the moon, but no, the reason wasn`t the age of the moon being wrong.
0
Reply
Male 621
The age of the moon is quite firmly set in the 4.5 billion year range, and there is no puzzling over the thickness of the dust layer on the moon in scientific circles. You`ll only hear that argument from creationist whackaloons that will use long-solved problems and treat them as though they`re still relevant.

The idea that there would be tons of dust on the moon`s surface is based on poor early estimations of lunar dust accumulations prior to 1966. After Surveyor I landed on the moon in May of 1966 the correct levels were confirmed, and the lunar landers were given SHORT legs.

See here.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angillion: The fact still remains that high dust accumulation numbers needed for planet formation does not coincide with the low dust accumulation on the moon. Scientists then postulated that the dust somehow compacted, on it`s own, into a solid regolith. The rocks brought back by the astronauts show no evidence supporting that claim. It takes much higher pressure than the low lunar gravity to compact dust into rock.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angillion: [quote]The USA had landed probes on the moon years before the manned missions - they knew the depth of the dust long before the manned missions.[/quote]

landing a probe is one thing, and none of them sent back data indicating dust depth.

You`re trying to engage in revisionist history if you claim that the scientific estimates were not 8 inches (or more) of dust.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I will just say that one of the things I admire most about science is its ability to admit mistakes.[/quote]

Likewise. Idiots mistake it for a weakness, when in fact it`s the greatest strength of science because it is placing the truth above all else.

Take the Standard Model`s explanation for mass, for example. Half a dozen brilliant scientists developed the theory to account for mass within the Standard Model. It`s been part of the Standard Model for over 40 years. Predictions based on it have been shown to be correct. Some other science has been built on it. It`s an important part of the explanation of how matter, i.e. everything physical in the universe, works. And scientists are fully prepared to bin it if the LHC doesn`t find the Higgs boson, because that would be evidence proving the theory wrong. Truth > everything else. It`s what makes science honest and dependable.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Whatever scientists may have theorised about what the moon would be like, they actually sent someone there and found out if what they believed was true or not.[/quote]

True, but even before then, even before the Surveyor probes, no scientists thought that the dust on the moon would be as thick as reality-denying creationists falsely claimed (and in a few cases, still claim) "science" "believed" it to be.

Even the scientist who made the initial measurements *of parts of some types of dust on Earth* thought he was wrong and said so in his paper. He was more wrong than he thought because he had made several incorrect assumptions. The actual figure (as measured directly, much later) for infall to the moon is much less than 1% of the figure quoted by some creationists (and even their figure doesn`t support their conclusions).

Creationists are desperately grasping at straws that aren`t even there.
0
Reply
Female 261
Anyone else look at those guys and think "oompa loompas?"
0
Reply
Male 5,006
CrakrJak and what about atmosphere and solar wind?
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]If anyone who isn`t devoted to ignorance for religious reasons thinks that CrakrJak isn`t talking total crap, I`ll write an explanation for them. Just let me know. [/quote]

No need for an explanation. Thankfully, even most religious people I know don`t exhibit the pathological denial of science that Crakr does. As a `recovering Catholic` myself, though (i.e., I was a practising one for 30 years, but made a conscious decision some years ago after careful consideration, and am an atheist now), I will just say that one of the things I admire most about science is its ability to admit mistakes. Whatever scientists may have theorised about what the moon would be like, they actually sent someone there and found out if what they believed was true or not. I wish more religions were as open and honest about the possibility of being wrong.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Oh, and drawman61? If you`re implying America didn`t land on the Moon, you`re a drooling idiot.[/quote]

That`s a bit harsh.

He might not be drooling.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Science believed that the moon was very very old and judging by the amount of space dust burned up in the earths atmosphere every year they mathematically figured the dust would necessarily be 8 inches deep. Even American scientists believed this, which is why the legs on the lunar landers were so tall.[/quote]

Science doesn`t believe anything. Science is a method. It has no mind. It`s also pretty much the opposite of belief, since a major point of it is that evidence trumps everything else.

Scientists did not all believe that there would be a very thick layer of dust on the moon. Some considered it a possibility.

The legs on the lunar lander being long because of the dust that CrakrJak`s fantasy science mathematically calculated was there is a particularly idiotic idea. The USA had landed probes on the moon years before the manned missions - they knew the depth of the dust long before the manned missions.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]It`s a puzzle scientists have yet to solve.[/quote]

Only in the fantasy world populated by those who desperately cling to the ignorance they love so dearly while vehemently denying the existence of reality.

Obviously, I`m not going to waste my time writing an explanation that you already know and devoutly ignore.

If anyone who isn`t devoted to ignorance for religious reasons thinks that CrakrJak isn`t talking total crap, I`ll write an explanation for them. Just let me know.

It`s worth noting that even most reality-denying creationists acknowledge that the "depth of the dust on the moon" argument is twaddle. So CrakrJak is an extremist loon who even the normal loons disagree with.

I`ll illustrate the remarkable depth of ignorance and depseration needed to maintain his position in my next post. I`ll use just one example from the many that I could choose.

I`m not being hard on him. If I was, I would choose the othe
0
Reply
Female 6,381
This is so cheesy I laughed all the way thru it. Probably called "How Glorious People`s Republic Will Land on Moon Before Americans."

Oh, and drawman61? If you`re implying America didn`t land on the Moon, you`re a drooling idiot.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
And who says the moon doesnt exist? :P
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]i think the biggest piece of evidence to prove fakeness was that jup up onto the ledge. He jumped straight up and then moved horizontally onto the ledge....???????????

bullpoo[/quote]

You think?
0
Reply
Male 246
i think the biggest piece of evidence to prove fakeness was that jup up onto the ledge. He jumped straight up and then moved horizontally onto the ledge....???????????

bullpoo
0
Reply
Male 7,775
And we all know how reliable the US moon landings were.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
By the tone of it it sounded like it was intended to educate what people thought of the moon rather than deceive they were there.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Please notice how deep they believed the dust on the moon to be, several inches and even feet deep in some places.

Science believed that the moon was very very old and judging by the amount of space dust burned up in the earths atmosphere every year they mathematically figured the dust would necessarily be 8 inches deep. Even American scientists believed this, which is why the legs on the lunar landers were so tall.

But as it turned out science got it wrong, they found out the moon isn`t as old as they thought it was, the dust on the moon is less than an inch deep.

This becomes a problem because in order to form planets the dust and debris accumulation rate needs to be at a high rate for them to form in a timely manner, but the rate of dust accumulation on the moon is evidenced to be very low. It`s a puzzle scientists have yet to solve.
0
Reply
Male 508
It`s obvious that Stanley Kubrick filmed this secretly for Russia before he died.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

Pity - party of 2 !
Pity - party of 2 !
0
Reply
Male 878
I distinctly remember as a kid (i.e well before the moon landings) that scientists speculated the moon`s surface was soft like this. That`s until Alan Shepard demonstrated it had the texture of a golf course. (That reference might be lost on the majority of you.)
0
Reply
Male 2,631
@darkmagic14n-
Everyone knows that Bedford and Cavor were the first in 1902.
And by the way, did anyone else reminisce over the old Lost In Space robot, upon seeing these spacesuits?
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]Henri The Cat, Part 1[/quote]

Don`t you listen to Gerry, 5Cats. It was clearly a CATastrophe that he beat you to that Henri link first.

If it makes you feel any better, I submitted your link about the Afghan girls living as boys, apparently from my perspective way before you did (though it`s very difficult to tell: even though the date that yours appeared was far later than the date/time I submitted that link - on the same day it was published - that`s no guarantee that I actually posted before you). To add insult to injury, I subsequently got an e-mail from IAB asking me to check whether stuff had been posted before suggesting it! When yours hadn`t even been posted at the time of my suggestion!! :D And this from a site where I`ve seen the same post/repost on the same front page before!!
0
Reply
Male 37,888

@ MacGuffin - Good Post. I loved this kind of older stuff. Predictions of the future or just what they thought looked really sci-fi back then.

@ 5Cats - GET OVER THE CAT THING! Just let it go, dude!
0
Reply
Female 2,602
I don`t know why I decided to post this. I think I was tired one evening last week, clicked a link off of one of the existing IAB videos, and found myself wondering "what the hell`s this?". Also, it made me LOL at 38 seconds in when the `Cosmonaut` puts on some skis to cross the moon`s surface.

I`ve since discovered it`s a Russian film called `Luna`, intended to be their version of an Arthur C Clarke vision of what moon exploration would be like. It was shelved without a release when the space race was on. Only four years later, man really did walk on the moon. Without skis.
0
Reply
Male 1,625
you guys are idiots, they CLEARLY were on the moon first and took away so many moon rocks its changed the density of the moon. when americans landed, gravity was vastly different.
0
Reply
Male 2,332
I`m pretty sure it isn`t Crabes.

If it is, I really need to re-evaluate my stance on Milfs.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
1:20 Litterbug! Tossing litter on the lunar surface is a 25 Ruble fine!!!

Henri The Cat, Part 1
0
Reply
Female 2,602
Oh yeah, *this* whimsical link you manage to post right, IAB^.




^ I`m still not over the `Sofa King` debacle. I thought I was, but the disappointment, it keeps engulfing me like Henri the Cat`s existential angst.

0
Reply
Male 1,284
is this fake? not sure

0
Reply
Male 2,362
Holy shattered illusions Batman!
0
Reply
Male 2,551
Really? What makes you think it`s fake?
0
Reply