The Chronicles of NASA: The Man,the Moon & the Myth

It’s that merry time that comes once every year.
The Celebration of our first trek off of this earthly sphere.
It fills most Americans with patriotic cheer,
as their rivals the Russians,boo and jeer.
And in the middle of all this, what do I see?
An age old controversy
and so I shall end this rhyme, so weird and queer
I now regret starting it, Oh dear, Oh dear
Diminished hopes of being his peer
I’m afraid this can’t compare to a sonnet of Shakespeare
 Thus concludes my short lived poet’s career
But Wait! Oh Dear readers, the point is missed I fear!
I have gone off on a tangent it would appear
The topic of the day is the Moon Landing. Hear, Hear

AAaaaand with that I lose half of the minute gathering of followers I had. Please accept my most humble apologies for that dreadful piece of prose. Went off on a whim there.  Let me compose myself (The Word Smith clears his throat).

Finally…Finally the Word Smith.has.come.back.toooo.talk.about.the.moooooooooooooooon.la-la-la-la-la-landing. (And now I lost the rest).

 But yes dear readers, proving yet again our obsession with multiples of five, we celebrated the 45^th anniversary of the first Manned Moon Landing on the 20^th of July.

It truly is a time for sharing and caring. Sharing posts of the damn moon landing and caring about whether or not it’s fake, that is. This might sound a bit hypocritical (since this is technically one of those posts) but dear readers I just want to put an end to this absurd controversy that’s been raging on for decades.

I shall examine eleven popular hoax theories about the moon landing that were debated, stating both the points and counter points.

Disclaimer: If you are a close-minded,self righteous prick of a conspiracy theorist then you may want to stick two fat fingers in your ear and hum loudly because shit’s about to get real. 

Nuff said let’s get down to it. 

1) That one small step

The iconic photograph of Buzz Aldrin’s boot print is one that symbolizes the statement “one small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind”. 

But theorists say that NASA is just throwing moon dust in our eyes. 

Their point being that there is no way for a footprint to be that well preserved in a place where there is no atmosphere and no moisture to hold the sand together. 

It is human nature to search for familiarity, and that is where the conspiracy theory crumbles to dust. Since there is no weather on the moon dust particles are not subjected to any weathering making these crystals jagged with sharp edges,enabling them to stick together like parts of a jigsaw puzzle thus maintaining the shape of the boot print.

With that starts this debate. We shall see who comes out ahead once the dust settles. 

2) The waving flag and then it goes back

The most commonly known issue is the waving flag. I saw it, you saw it, your grandpapi with the one eye saw the damn banner of the USA flapping about proudly in the breeze. This is an impossibility in a vacuum devoid of air. So why the bloody hell did it? Conspiracy theorists say because it was filmed here on earth

NASA blames the flag waving on a bad iron job, making the flag look unfurled and giving it that rippling effect, and on Neil Armstrong’s clumsy attempt to stick the flag in the ground thereby making the pole and consequently the flag flap around which can indeed happen even in a vacuum.

Cropped photograph animation of Buzz Aldrin saluting the "waving" flag

In this case proof does support NASA but to be fair to the conspiracy theorists it really looks like a gust of wind making the flag flutter. More to the point if that were true the theorized filming would have had to be shot outdoors or perhaps someone left the windows open on set .Do you think the minds who would formulate such a grand hoax will allow such a miniscule mistake?

3) Moon landing ain’t shit but tricks and slow-mo 

 

 

Conspiracy theorists say that documentation of the astronauts prancing around on the moon is nothing but Hollywood hokum.

The footage when sped up shows the movement to be almost earth like (i.e. subjected to gravity).Trick wires and cables also enable the replication of the weightlessness and immensely elevated jumps.

Always be Batman

Scientists rebut this claim by drawing attention to the dust that the lumbering astronauts and the lunar rover fling around when they move about on the moon. Dust on earth when kicked up suspends in the air forming clouds due to the atmosphere where as dust on the moon just falls back at the same rate as any other object. 
This effect can be clearly seen in the recording

For NASA to fake such conditions they would have to create a vacuum studio which is an incredibly difficult task even in today’s standards. There really is no point kickin’up dust.

4)A Shadow of a doubt

The only source of light on the moon is the Sun right?

 
 So explain how the shadows in this picture are cast in different directions and not parallel to each other.

 

 
And explain this picture of the clearly visible and well lit astronaut in the shadow of lunar module. I ain’t racist but shouldn’t he be black?

Clearly there are more light sources and errthing is staged.

NASA points its finger at the contours of the lunar landscape and holds it responsible for the different directions in which the shadows are cast. The exaggerated angular disparity however seems a little shady (pun intended).  

The photograph of the lunar module and the clearly visible astronaut is explained by the simple fact that lunar regolith or moon dust/rock is quite reflective (can reflect up to 12% of light to be exact) thus illuminating the astronaut.

But that is nothing compared to the other reflective light source present. The earth has the ability to reflect 30% of light. Talk about overshadowing someone.

5) No moon rock left unturned 

Conspiracy theorists are proud to present you with…… “The copyright rock”

Yes that is the letter “C” imprinted on a lunar rock on the moon. Maybe someone from the previous Apollo missions carved their initials on there, looking at you Commander Charles Conrad; or perhaps this is the work of aliens.

Theorists however go back to the studio claiming this is a prop mishap where a set designer accidentally left a labeled rock upturned and that was caught on camera.

NASA provides quite suspicious answers as they say that this is a stray strand of hair caught up somewhere in the developing process, a mere glitch. Yet they also put forward a second accusation that this was a crime of photograph tampering by some elusive fiend.  

 When I checked the original photograph on the NASA website the C wasn’t on the rock. 

So why then did NASA scientists make a big deal over something that wasn’t even there and respond to this hoax accusation? Whether at the hands of NASA or a prankster it is evident some sort of photograph tinkering has been going on.

6) Caught in the cross hairs 

Yet another photographic blunder was spotted by a very keen eyed possibly unemployed theorist who noticed something quite odd about the crosshairs in the Apollo photographs. The crosshairs said to have been etched into the camera lens appear to be behind some of the objects in the stills.

How is this even possible? This is clearly a flaw wrought forth by the fabrication of these photographs.

This can be disputed with one word, “overexposure” and I don’t mean of theorists to conspiracy documentaries.

I speak in terms of Photography

The issue of the photographs where the crosshair appears behind the object only arises when the crosshair is in front of bright white areas. The problem with this is that it renders the thin line of the crosshair invisible thus creating the illusion of the object being in front of the cross hair.

But photo doctoring is always a possibility and theorists may still stick to their guns however I think it’s fair to say that this claim was shot down.

7) Seeing double

It would seem that the ever frugal NASA has erred again in its attempt to pull the wool over our eyes by using the same set of backdrops and same locations. The audacity!  

 This is blatantly clear in both the stills as well as the footage which when merged shows the exact same topography although NASA claims that they were filmed in completely different locations. Put two and two together and the answer is in plain sight, Orchestration!

NASA simply answers this allegation with an unenthused “No”. They point out that the moon is small, barren and has no atmosphere and the combination of all three affects the perception of distance thus giving us the illusion that the photographs were shot in the same location.

However this does not explain why the hill from the footage of Apollo 16 day one, is the exact same one in the footage of day two when NASA claims that they were shot in two different locales. Is it just coincidence or is there more to it than meets the eye?

 

8) Star struck

 

When you look up into the night sky you see thousands of sparkling stars out there in space. Theorists point out the total lack of stars in all the photographs and video footage taken on the moon. Why when on the moon, in space, are there no visible stars? Did God turn out his heavenly light bulbs or was this another prop disaster?

Well much like celebrities trying to hide from the paparazzi it would seem that these stars are concealed in plain sight. In both cases photography is to blame. The brightly lit lunar landscape prevents the use of high exposure cameras and the shutter speed of the cameras used was fast thus rendering the photographs starless.

9) In the Spotlight

 

And to centre stage returns Commander Charles "Pete" Conrad. 

The picture below was taken on the commander’s Apollo 12 mission and what is that I see on the top right corner of his visor? 

The lunar module? No that was to the right of the photograph. A UFO?  Could be. But theorists go with stage equipment. They believe that foreign object to be a spotlight or a ceiling fan dangling from the rafters.

It is actually believed to be one of the artifacts from previous missions. Which one exactly? I’m unsure of.  I actually think it looks a lot like a Command/Service Module orbiting the moon. If you think you know what it is I kindly invite you to comment below and to step into the limelight.

10) Brace for anti-climactic impact 

 

Theorists say that they have seen craters bigger than that of the lunar landing on their own faces. There is no blast crater or dust displacement or any evidence of the 17 ton lunar module’s arrival on the moon in any of the photographs or video footage

The simple fact of the matter is that the moon’s gravity being 1/6^th that of earth means that the Lunar module didn’t need any thrust to slow down its descent thus explaining the lack of a blast crater. The Lunar module did have a throttleable descent engine to enable the shift from its ejected horizontal position into a vertical descent. 

The engine is shut off way before the landing.

So the conspiracy theory it would seem is just full of hot air. 
Blast!

 11) Van H-allen’s Radiation belt

 

 I “Ain’t talking ‘bout love” or Van Halen either but both the Band and the Belt (Van Allen’s belt that is) can melt your face and cook you inside out. So the question theorists ask, with no malicious intent is why weren’t the astronauts burnt alive by the radiation despite the aluminum coating layered module? 

NASA responded by stating that they built a rocket for a reason. The short time it takes to traverse through the belt reduces the radiation exposure to 1/25^th of the allowed standard, set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission. 

So conspiracy theorists it’s time to face the music.

If the points above weren’t satisfactory and you still believe in the depths of your heart that man has not set a single foot on the moon I give to you the Lunar Laser ranging experiment.

Laser tag with the moon

The moon is littered with artifacts. Among them are retro-reflectors left by the Apollo (manned) missions. These are, essentially, reflective surfaces that enabled scientists to bounce lasers off the moon. 

I can almost hear the naysayers screaming their protests .Yes they did bounce lasers off the actual surface of the moon before the Apollo missions, but the reflectors offer better, stronger and far more accurate reflection.  This experiment is conducted in labs around the globe thus providing not only conclusive proof of man being on the moon but also an experiment to measure the distance from the earth to the moon.

This was a Public Service Announcement  brought to you by yours truly if you know any conspiracy theorists send them this way and I’ll bitch slap them with the truth. 

Annuit cœptis

Peace out

Transformers:The Rise of the Writer Robots

Dear Readers 

I bring to you this alarming bulletin immediately after stumbling upon the disturbing news that I am actually, a computer program.

Hold on! Wait! Wait just a second…I’m getting a new update…

After further experimentation, which involved slapping myself in the face (which hurt) and a swift sharp kick in the crotch (delivered by my girl friend ,which hurt even more; not because of her betrayal but more by the action itself) it is safe to conclude that, I, am real. 

Not so fast Geppetto, whether I’m a real boy or a girl shall be determined after doctors examine my crushed genitals; although most of my friends will have already diagnosed me as a girl.

Much to my displeasure however, that controversy shall remain unsolved.

Today’s controversy shall be….

Robot writers Aye or Nein?

Call me superficial, a dumbass or whatever you want to, but what actually drove me to write on this topic is that, one, of these automated writing programs and I have something in common. Our name.
 Wordsmith. 

I know, I know, besides actually meaning that one is apt at writing, it is indeed a popular pseudo name. But whether you like it or not that’s what caught my attention and that’s what led me to delve into the world of automated writing.

Now for a bit of Fun, Factual & tangential trivia. 

This is a 240 year-old automaton writer, which essentially is a predecessor of the modern robot and possibly even the computer. 

Being one out of the three infamous automata designed by the Jaquet --Droz family, it can write cursive that buries my own. 

Even though that isn’t saying much, No-one can deny that this is an astounding piece of machinery.

 But even saying that does not justify what it is; a true work of art, a masterpiece. 

Fast forward to the future, where robot writers of today are already out there; analyzing data, crunching algorithms, literally dotting the “I”s and crossing the “T”s, and actually publishing books and writing articles.  Associated Press, Forbes, LA Times, ProPublica, Yahoo! are some of the companies who already have robot writers. 

Here begins the controversy. 

Most authors, poets and journalists are appalled by the implication that their literature, unto which their blood, sweat and tears have been poured, can be replaced by the formulated text pumped out of cold, hard soulless machines.  

However the opposition argues that almost all writing has some form of formula or algorithm behind it, which can be replicated by computer programs to produce equally similar pieces. Robot writers acutally back this up providing narratives that are surprisingly competent and are reasonably indistinguishable from that of a human writer, and perhaps even better.   

I say this only in the context of article writing that involves a lot of statistics and numerical data. Given the correct algorithm a computer can analyze large chunks of data to obtain, patterns, anomalies, key data and predict future trends much more efficiently and accurately than a human. This coupled with the recent ability to convert this data into easily comprehensible narratives the robot writer gets an edge over its human counterpart.

Along with my namesake program there are several other programs that offer this service, The Quill (article writing for businesses) and Quakebot (which reports about seismic activity straight from the U.S. Geological Survey and writes articles about it)are two examples. 

So the question remains, can robot writers actually replace human writers? 

In the future, perhaps.

The simple fact of the matter is that however complex a computer is “WE” are far more complex. 

Of course a computer is more neutral, factual and logical but it is 

that emotional touch

that empathy 

that individualistic perspective that is labeled as bias 

that makes a piece of writing special and unique,both to read and to write.

 

The solution or rather conclusion is simple.Coexistence. 

Let the robot writers handle the boring factual and statistical articles (still under human supervision) & leave opinionated, artistic and idealistic literature to the human writers. 

But before you go I pose to you a question …. 

Can you differentiate the writing of a computer from that of a human? It is surprisingly hard to draw a distinction. Don’t believe me? Take this quiz and see for yourself.

BOT or NOT

Not to Brag but I got 10 out of 10. Try and beat that Bitc..Readers! Readers!

Peace out and as the young Swaggies say “TU tantum Vivere Quodam”