does anyone know about the split on the moon's surface level that was found by astronauts (As if the moon was split once upon a time). A program was done on it back on BBC, but I missed it.\nThanks
213187
There is a large "wall" rift along one of the mares.
616264
The moon has a side that always faces us! That's not always filled with light though. That's why we have phases of the moon.
188540
The moon although is a sphere, but it is so far away that it appear a flat round disk. there is nothing strange about this and if people are not educated that moon is a spherical rock, they'd probably think it's a round flat disk.\n\nBut for me, I see it as a hole in the ceiling.
372033
This scam/rumor has been going on for decades...since I was in high school in the '70's...surely one of the longest lasting myths in the last 50 years (exceeded only by the myth that the moon landing didn't happen and was a fabrication of the govt.)  No facility accepts these for free treatment.  (when I was in school, it was for free dialysis though).
634325
"...was nasa lying about neil armstrong going to the moon?..."\n\nNo, definitely not. It's unbelievable how many people prefer to accept the half-baked, erroneous "proofs" that show men never landed on the moon to the undeniable scientific facts that prove we did. Take the time to read the facts on this non-governmental website ==> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html\n\n"...the technology is much greater today than 1965, so why cant we go up there again?..."\n\nYes, our technology has greatly advanced since 1969, but at this time we simply don't have the necessary hardware to put men back on the moon---no Saturn-like boosters, no life-support systems required for manned lunar voyages, no lunar landing equipment, etc.,. It's true that we could build all the necessary equipment, but a number of factors discourage further manned lunar exploration--the space race is over, the American public has lost interest in the moon, and NASA's budget is far below the levels needed to ramp up again for manned lunar flights.
615490
I don't think anyone has done the math to figure out how quickly it would happen but with out the moon the Earth's rotation on it's axis would not be stable where it is now.  If that got out of wack we would have some serious weather problems.  It's the tilt of the Earth not the distance from the sun that makes the difference between summer and winter.  So if that wobble that has the the northern hemisphere facing the sun in the summer and leaning away at 23 some degrees in the winter was screwed up we'd probably all die.  There's a good move called, odly enough< If we Had no Moon.  It's from the discovery channel, and you can buy it or just check their TV schedule, it comes on once or twice a year.
223936
Yes, it is absolutely beautiful. I love watching the moon through my telescope. Each of her craters are beautiful, everything about her makes you want to continue watching her. I hope everyone has a good day :)
303451
There is a woman scientist now exploring an indentation of rock (forget where) who claims there is evidence that just about everything, including and especially human beings, are from outer space.  She has been denied funding repeatedly, she says, because of bias and religious protection.  I wish I could recall the name of the show...it was on The Discovery Channel about a month ago.  Pretty interesting premise for those of us that do not subscribe to the available written texts concerning how life came to be on this planet.  Honestly tho, I don't think we will know any time soon.  In the case that the major religions are wrong, everything we know would be upturned and there would most likely be chaos among all people.  Maybe it's better if we're left to wonder.
93816
Amazing!! Wonder how many people out there are too lazy to do some real research and read the scientific facts proving that man has landed on and partially explored the Moon. Here's a good place to start: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html  On this website each and every "fact" claiming that the Moon landings were all faked are ripped to shreds.\n\nMy favorite "fact" is about the 'waving' flag on the airless Moon. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand how the flag can be made to appear to be waving. Duh!\n\nNobody from the Faked Moon Landing bunch has ever answered my question about several hundred pounds of rock and soil brought back that research groups AROUND THE WORLD unanimously agreed was non-terrestrial (that means not of Earth for the vocabulary challenged among us) in origin.\n\nI think it was P.T. Barnum who said something like, "You can fool some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." The operative word in that quote is 'fool,' as in numbskull, idiot, moron, etc.,.\n\nGood grief...why do stupid people insist on publicizing it?
453495
Hi Richie.\n\nI got the Best Answer prize for a very similar question a few dyas ago on here that asked if you can see the American flag from Earth. The answer and the reason is exactly the same - so here it is again,\n\nThe Hubble Space telescope's maximum resolution is such that an entire Apollo landing site and exploration area are only 1/20th of a pixel. Hubble was designed with deep space astronomy in mind.\n\nEven the new OWL telescope (see Link 1) would only resolve the entire site to 2 pixels and would therefore not be enough to see the flag.\n\nIf your question is to prove that man actually walked on the moon then you need look no further than the Laser Reflector Experiment which constantly laser measures the distance between earth and moon. If the astronauts had never made it to the moon, they would not have been able to deploy these reflectors. (see Link 2) \n\nSource(s):\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2116...\n\nhttp://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/apollo11...\n\n\nPlease ignore the last bit - coz thankfully it looks like you are not one of those nutters !
631090
Check out Mythbusters...i think they did a show on this.\nhttp://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html
343777
Thank you very much for the link you gave. I read this news yesterday night on Yahoo. I have forgotten about this until you have remind me. Thank you again.  \nIs there any other way for us to view it other than using a telescope? I don't have a telescope.
374913
I just asked a question about the Montauk Project myself.I read the books.They seem to be very technically correct about a lot of the  things they talk about.So who-ever wrote them wasn't an idiot or a nut making up a story. I believe that the things spoken of in the stories are more than likely possible.Whether or not they actually happened as it is written,or if we really do possess this secret technoIogy, I don't know.In a way though,I kind of hope it isn't completely true,because the story of these projects are filled with abuse and inhuman treatment of human beings in the name of scientific developement and whatever else.
491117
nice one mate ........i dont think many people got the point.... the answer from scots_lad what a moon man
443918
Trust me they did, but let me give you some hoax's and then the explanation for them hey. I have picked 4 big ones that are fairly typical. Its a bit long, but please stick with me :)\n\n1) No stars in the photos:\n\nThe real reason is that when contrasted with the brightness of the astronauts and the lunar surface, the stars are just too dim to register on the photographic emulsion of the camera film. If the camera shutter were held open long enough for the stars to register, everything else would be over-exposed into a white featureless glare. \n\nYou cannot have both visible on the one photograph, so the camera was set for the correct exposure for Buzz Aldrin and the lunar surface, not the stars. When standing on the lunar surface the astronauts could not visually observe the stars in the dark sky, because of the surface glare, they could only see them when standing in shadow. By the same token, if we take a photograph outdoors at night from a brightly illuminated surface, our photograph also would not show any stars in the sky.\n\n2) The flags waving.\n\nThe flag is out and appears to be waving by an extendable rod running through the top of the flag, so that it can be viewed unfurled, and you can see the unnatural rigidity this gives to the top of the flag in the picture. The rod creates the effect of a breeze blowing the flag into that position. Without the supporting rod the flag would just hang limply down and would not reveal the stars and stripes. The rod is not extended the full width of the flag and it looks like a breeze is causing a ripple in the flag.\n\nIt has also been claimed that some video clips show the flag waving in the breeze when it was planted. Not so. The movement of the flag is only because when astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil.\n\n3) 'Wrong' shadows\n\nThe simple fact is that there is more than one light source. The light does not come directly from the Sun and illuminate only the one object in question, as a narrow beam spotlight would in a dark room. It shines on the entire daytime surface, just as it does here on Earth. Therefore it also illuminates the surface, the astronauts themselves, rocks, mountains, the Lander and all the other objects on the surface. \n\nThe reflections from these objects is why there is more than one light source, it is not because there was more than one spotlight used on a film set. It is also worth noting that on the lunar surface the reflected sunlight from the Earth is 68% brighter than that of the full Moon as seen from Earth. \n\nFor more on this question check out badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01\n\nAll the other fake photographs are explained just as easily with a little knowledge, and an understanding of how conditions on the Moon are very different to those here. With no atmosphere to scatter the light, things look a little odd on the Moon, we have a very black sky and a very bright surface. \n\nWe see strong shadows everywhere, and our sense of distance is also fooled because there is no atmosphere to produce the familiar atmospheric haze that creates a distance perspective on Earth. Furthermore, with the gravity being only a sixth of Earth's gravity, things move and behave differently as well. \n\nIt's hard to make straight comparisons, because we cannot, the Moon is just not like the Earth. We have to think differently when interpreting the images from the Moon, and that's what causes the problems, people are not allowing for those differences when looking at the lunar photographs. They are looking at them as if they were taken under normal Earth conditions, and concluding wrongly that there must be something wrong with the photographs.\n\n4) Why doesn't the Hubble Space Telescope provide proof hey\nThe equipment left over by the astronauts is just too small to be seen with the HST. Even the best image we have of the moon is taken of Copernicus crate
47749
http://www.grand-illusions.com/moon.htm\n\nThe Moon Illusion\n\nThe moon illusion is one of the most famous of all illusions. Stated simply, the full moon, when just above the horizon, appears much larger than when it is overhead. Yet the moon, a quarter of a million miles away from the earth, always subtends the same angle wherever it is in the sky, roughly 0.5 degrees.\n\nThe first problem is for photographers. A wonderful picture presents itself, with the full moon just rising above a spectacular horizon. Click, the picture is taken. Yet the result is disappointing. The moon seems much smaller in the photograph than it did when viewed with the naked eye. Even professional photographers fall for this one. Yet on a normal lens, 50mm on a 35mm camera, the field of view is around 50 degrees, and the width of the moon, subtending an angle of 0.5 degrees, will be 100th of the width of the photo! Many photographs that you see in magazines, containing both a moon and a landscape, will be composites. The landscape will be taken with a normal lens, the moon taken with a telephoto lens, to get a bigger image.\n\nHow does this illusion come about? Since the moon always subtends an angle of 0.5 degrees, the image on the retina must always be the same. Clearly the problem is one of interpretation. One simple experiment shows this to be so. A full moon just above the horizon will not appear so large to the human eye if a piece of paper is held up to that eye with a hole in it, so that only the moon can be seen through the hole and not the horizon. If the other eye is open at the same time, viewing both the moon and the horizon, the two eyes will each see different sized moons!\n\nThe explanation is believed to be as follows. We 'know' that a cloud that is overhead will be larger than when it moves towards the horizon. And an airplane that is a mere speck on the horizon becomes large when it is overhead. And we are all familiar with standing under a tree which seems enormous, yet at a couple of hundred paces seems insignificant. It would seem that so much of our world is interpreted this way that we are ill-equipped to cope with an object like the moon, that subtends the same angle at the eye, whatever position it occupies in the sky. And so our brain 'interprets' the image that it 'sees', and tells us that the moon is larger than it really is.\n\nHendrik Ball\n\n\n\nFrom: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_110.html\n\n\nDear Cecil:\n\nI have noticed that the moon (and the sun, for that matter) appears very large just as it rises and sets. When it is overhead, it seems tiny by comparison. The color is also vastly different, but this can be easily explained by the fact that we view the moon through varying ''thicknesses'' of atmosphere as it makes its way across the sky. But this explanation seems insufficient to account for the change in size. So what's the straight dope? --Frank M., Los Angeles\n\nCecil replies:\n\nBelieve it or not, Frank, they've been arguing about this for two thousand years, and it's about time I got things straightened out. First of all, let me make it clear that the effect is an optical illusion. If you measure the moon with a ruler held at arm's length (a paper clip bent into the shape of a calipers will also work), you'll find it's always the same size no matter where it happens to be in the sky. If anything, the moon is slightly smaller at the horizon than it is at the zenith, mainly because it's 4,000 miles (the radius of the earth) farther away. (If you don't understand why this is so, draw yourself a picture.) Nonetheless, most people are convinced that, area-wise, the moon's at least twice as big when it's near the horizon as when it's overhead.\n\nNumerous theories have been advanced to explain the ""moon illusion.'' At one point people thought it had something to do with the angle at which you hold you
297248
Wait, I heard that the moon controlled the length of our days.  When the moon was closer, our days were about 8-9 hours long, the further away the moon gets, the longer our days get (and the moon is reportedly getting further away, slowly)  Now, if it broke up and gave us rings, it's gravity would no longer be concentrated in one spot but all around us, wouldn't that have an effect on our day length?\n\nOoooohh, now I've got a question to add.\nKIM