Swinburne Online Education Great Debates in Astronomy
Module 8:
Not So Great Debates
Activity 2:
A Healthy Dose of Skepticism
© Swinburne University of Technology
Summary
In this Activity, we will look at two “fringe” theories that
the majority of the scientific community have always
disagreed with, but that a not-insignificant number of
people believe - even when all the evidence seems to
clearly point against it.
We will investigate:
• approaches to Skeptical Thinking;
• the Moon Hoax; and
• the Face on Mars.
Quantity or Quality?
We live in a society that is constantly bombarded by information.
Newspapers
Television
Magazines
The Internet
Radio
Films
With this quantity of information comes a need to make a
judgement about the quality, but often this judgement requires
that you have some additional knowledge.
When we are presented with two different views on a topic, how
do we work out whether one, both or neither of the views are
correct?
Decisions, Decisions
Consider the following scenario.
You walk into a book store looking for a book on the
Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence . You are
presented with two options*:
A Phoenix From the Ashes:
A History of the SETI Institute
Alien Encounters and Other
Unexplained Phenomena
Which of these books do you choose?
* Reference to any existing book is purely unintentional
How Do You Choose?
Was your choice influenced by the fact that you have
some background in astronomy and science, so that you
can make an “informed” choice between these two?
What if you had no astronomy background, how would
you choose?
In that situation, is your choice any more or less valid?
What Do You Believe?
In this Activity, we are going to look at two case studies
where science has provided an answer that some people
choose not to accept.
We are going to look at evidence that:
• The Moon landings were faked.
• There is direct evidence for an ancient Martian civilisation.
Note that in our statement above, choice is the most important element.
We are not going to make any judgements about whether a person
should or should not be allowed to believe either side of the argument.
We will simply present the cases and the scientific evidence that refute
the specific claims. Whether you believe or not is totally up to you!
Taking Sides
In the Great Debates we have presented so far, both the “for”
and “against” arguments are quite technical:
Big Bang versus Steady State
One of the most important pieces of evidence for the Big
Bang over the Steady State theory is the existence of the
isotropic 3K microwave background radiation. This is
believed to be the remnant of the decoupling of matter
and photons that occurred as the “cosmic fireball” cooled.
To discern between opposing viewpoints, scientists are trained to
theorise and perform experiments until they can convincingly
demonstrate that one of the viewpoints is absolutely ruled out.
Note that this does not automatically prove that the other
viewpoint is the correct one, only that it has yet to be disproved.
Extraordinary Claims, Extraordinary Evidence*
When presented with claims such as the faking of the
Moon landings, the temptation may be to say “That’s
ridiculous - how could anyone believe that!”.
However, that does not stop books, television shows and
numerous Internet sites arguing that these claims are not
ridiculous.
Drink up, it’s
good for you
And some people do believe them…
How then should a scientist
respond to “extraordinary
claims”?
Often the best method is with
a healthy does of skepticism.
* A famous quotation on skeptical thinking has been attributed to Carl
Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Skeptical Thinking
In his book, “The Demon Haunted World” Carl Sagan
offered some ideas on skeptical thinking:
What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to
understand, a reasoned argument and - especially important - to
recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not
whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning,
but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and
whether that premise is true.
Sagan suggested that a
skeptic should be equipped
with a set of tools for
investigating claims:
a “Baloney Detection Kit”.
Hey, this
thing does
work!
What Goes Into the Skeptics Toolkit?
Some useful skeptical tools include the following:
• Look for independent confirmation of the facts.
• Experiments are more believable if they are repeatable.
• Encourage debate on the evidence by knowledgable
proponents of all points of view.
• Do not rely upon arguments from authority, as they carry
little weight. Authorities can be wrong!
• In an argument, every link in the chain must work - not
just most of them.
More Tools: Which Hypothesis is Best?
There may be more than one hypothesis to explain a claim,
so try and think of (at least) a few of them.
• Always ask whether each hypothesis can be falsified.
• Think of tests that can disprove each alternative.
• Do not get attached to a hypothesis because it is your own.
• Where possible, discriminate between hypotheses by
applying a numerical value that helps to quantify what you
are measuring.
• Apply Occam’s Razor - if two hypotheses explain the data
equally well, choose the simpler one.
With our toolkit in hand, we are ready to tackle the first of
the case studies.
The Moon Landing
On 20 July 1969, astronauts
Neil Armstrong and Edwin
“Buzz” Aldrin left the Apollo 11
Lunar Lander and became the
first humans to walk on the
surface of the Moon.
Or did they?
The Moon
Nevada?
Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin
Has anyone ever been to the Moon, or were Armstrong,
Aldrin and the rest of the Apollo astronauts participants in
the greatest hoax of the 20th century, perpetrated from a
top-secret television studio in Nevada?
Who Does Not Believe?
Just how many people subscribe to “Moon Hoax” theories?
One year after the Apollo 11 mission, a survey by Knight
Newspapers of 1,721 US residents found that 30% were
not totally convinced that the Moon landing was real*.
Polls conducted by Time/CNN and Gallup during the 1990s
suggested that around 6% of those surveyed had doubts,
corresponding to ~10 million people across the US.
Whatever the actual number of doubters, NASA continues
to receive letters demanding to know the truth.
* Like all newspaper polls, this result should also be treated with skepticism!
Conspiracy Theories
A selection of books supporting the view that there were
conspiracies involved in the Moon landings include:
• We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion
Dollar Swindle by Bill Kaysing, Randy Reid.
• NASA Mooned America by Ralph René.
• Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers by Mary
Bennet and David S. Percy.
• Moongate by Bill Brian.
In February 2001, the US Fox TV network aired Conspiracy
Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, once again opening
the question of Moon hoaxes.
A great deal of response was generated on the Internet, with a
comprehensive “debunking” carried out by Phil Plait on his
Bad Astronomy web-site (www.badastronomy.com).
The “conspiracy theories” seem to full into two broadcategories.
• That the Moon landings were completely faked.
• That missions to the Moon did occur, but the footage
shown was faked in order to cover up what the
astronauts really found.
Most of the doubts raised
about the Moon landings are
based on “anomalies”
primarily from the visual
record: the photographs and
movies actually taken by the
astronauts.
Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin
Should Armstrong have received the
Best Actor OscarTM in 1969 instead of
John Wayne?
Reasons Why the Landing Was Faked
The following is a list of some of the “evidence” supporting
the claim that the Moon landings were faked*.
• There are no stars in the pictures
taken on the Moon’s surface.
• There is very little dust and no
crater caused as the Lunar
Module comes to rest.
• No smoke or flames are visible
when the Lunar Module takes off.
• The US flag waves in the vacuum
of space!
Let’s have a close look at the
evidence.
* A more complete list may be found at the
Bad Astronomy web-site.
Parallel light
rays from Sun
No Stars in the Pictures
When the Sun is above the
horizon, the Earth’s atmosphere
scatters light in all directions, and
Scattered by
atmosphere
the sky appears blue*.
When the Sun is below the horizon
on Earth, the night sky is dark(ish) and the stars are visible.
There is no atmosphere on the Moon, so the sky should always
be dark as the Sun’s light is not scattered. Therefore, stars
should be visible all the time on both the night and day sides of
the Moon.
But there are no stars in the background of images of
astronauts!
* The blueness of the sky is due to Rayleigh Scattering that preferentially
scatters blue light about ten times more than red light.
No stars
The Earth above the
Moon’s horizon
No stars
Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin
descends from Apollo 11
Lunar Module
No stars
Charles Conrad Jr setting
up equipment near Apollo
12 Lunar Module
Is the lack of stars in photographs evidence that the
Moon landings are a hoax?
How would you respond to this claim?
Response to No Stars Claim
Would you expect to see any stars
if you took a photograph at night of
a person standing underneath a
street light?
No, because you would need to set
your camera’s exposure to deal
with the bright object that you are
focusing on, and so you would
miss the faint background stars.
The same things happens with photographs taken on the Moon.
The stars are there, but they are just too faint to be seen in
photographs with the short duration exposures that were taken.
The astronauts would have seen the stars with their own eyes,
because the human visual system is not the same as a camera.
Counter Claim
But what about this
picture here of the
damaged Apollo 13
service module.
There seem to be
lots of stars in the
background of this
image! What’s
going on?
It should become apparent
what the “stars” really are if
you look closely at the
exhaust port...
Counter Claim
But what about this
picture here of the
damaged Apollo 13
service module.
There seem to be
lots of stars in the
background of this
image! What’s
going on?
It should become apparent
what the “stars” really are if
you look closely at the
exhaust port...
How can stars be in front of
the engine? Because they
are faults in the image!
No Crater and No Dust
Because there is no atmosphere on the Moon,
aerobraking cannot be used to control the descent, and so
a significant thrust is required to slow down the Lunar
Module.
However, there is no evidence of a crater underneath the
Lunar Module that you might expect from such a large
thrust.
And there does not seem to
be much dust that has been
disturbed by the landing
either, when it should all
have been blown away.
Is the lack of a
sizeable crater
underneath and
the presence of
dust near the
Lunar Module
evidence that the
Moon landings
are a hoax?
How would you
respond to this
claim?
Apollo 14 Lunar Module
Response to the No Crater Claim
A NASA Information sheet* has this to say:
“Although the descent engine of the L[unar]
M[odule] is powerful, most of its operation
takes place thousands of feet above the Moon
during the early stages of the landing.”
Unlike an asteroid or meteorite that crashes into the surface of
the Moon, leaving a sizeable impact crater, the Lunar Module
landing was a controlled descent.
The Lunar Module engines were capable of a thrust of about
44,500 Newtons (10,000 pounds), but near the surface, this
was throttled back to about 13,000 Newtons (3000 pounds).
With this lower amount of thrust, a sizeable “blast” crater is
much less likely.
* Quote taken from article at
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.09/moon.land_pr.html
Response to the No Dust Claim
When dust is blown around on the Earth, it is because of
the motion of particles in the air knocking against the dust in
a very complex “conservation of momentum” situation.
The distance that the dust travels depends on such things
as the density of the air, the mass of the dust particles and
the mass of the air molecules.
Let’s demonstrate this with a simple diagram:
Take a Deep Breath…and Blow!
If we were to look very
closely at the interaction
between the air we are
blowing out and the dust
particles, this is what we
would see:
Air molecules
Dust particle
In this situation, the molecules in the air we breathe out push
against other bits of air, which eventually strike the dust
particles, providing a force that pushes the dust.
And so on.
However, on the airless Moon, the only way that dust can be
moved around by the engine exhaust is:
If the dust is directly hit
by other dust particles
If the dust is directly hit
by the exhaust products
Exhaust
product
Dust
particle
or
Dust
particle
Dust
particle
These two effects will result in much less dust being displaced
from the vicinity of the Lunar Module as the descent engines
are fired than if the same engines were used on the Earth.
Therefore, it should not be
surprising that there is still
plenty of dust near the Lunar
Module to record the footsteps
of the Apollo astronauts.
And the footprints left in the dust should remain there for
thousands of years, as there is no wind to blow them away.
No Smoke or Flames When Lander Lifts Off
When a rocket, such as a Saturn V
(left), takes off it is accompanied by
a great deal of smoke and flame.
When the ascent stage of the Lunar
Module was launched, returning the
astronauts to the waiting Command
Module orbiting the Moon, there
was no smoke and no flames.
You can follow this link to watch a
movie of the Lunar Module taking off
here and see for yourself that there is
no smoke or flame.
Is the lack of smoke and flame in the launch of the
Lunar Lander ascent stage evidence that the Moon
landings are a hoax?
How would you
respond to this claim?
The Apollo 11 Lunar Lander
returns to the Command
Module, as seen by waiting
astronaut Michael Collins
Response to the No Flame Claim
The fuel source for the Lunar Lander ascent stage was a
mixture of the hypergolic propellants Dinitrogen Tetroxide and
AeroZine (50% Hydrazine*, 50% unsymmetrical Dimethyl
Hydrazine).
Hypergolic means that the two chemicals will ignite when they
are brought into contact with each other. This has advantages
with regards to storing the propellants, and allows for easy
stopping and restarting of the ignition.
When brought into contact, Dinitrogen Tetroxide and AeroZine
produce a product that is transparent.
The reason that no flame can be seen is that there is no flame
to be seen - it’s invisible.
* Hydrazine is a compound of hydrogen and nitrogen,
similar to ammonia.
Stars and Stripes in Space
“Buzz” Aldrin
Apollo 11
Pete Conrad
Apollo 12
Gene Cernan
Apollo 17
Consider these images taken during three of the Apollo Moon
landings. Let’s zoom in on the flag in each photograph.
Stars and Stripes in Space
“Buzz” Aldrin
Apollo 11
Pete Conrad
Apollo 12
Gene Cernan
Apollo 17
Consider these images taken during three of the Apollo Moon
landings. Let’s zoom in on the flag in each photograph.
The crumpled nature of the flags make it looks like a wind is
blowing through them.
But how can that be, as there is no air, and definitely no wind
on the Moon?
More Evidence
And what about the footage of Neil Armstrong and “Buzz”
Aldrin planting the American flag on the Lunar surface, that
you can watch by following this link.
The flag clearly moves after they have let go of it.
How could that be?
Is the rippled appearance of the flags and the fact that
the flag is actually seen to move unaided evidence that
the Moon landings are a hoax?
How would you respond to this claim?
Response to the Waving Flag Claim
Here is a picture of how the flag was
meant to be deployed.
While this image shows how the flag
was actually transported to the Moon.
You can see that the flag material is
folded up, and that the flagpole
consists of several segments.
The reason the first flag planted on the Moon
appears to have ripples is that it did not deploy as
planned!
Broken
Flag Failure
At the top of the flag is a telescoping
support rod that was designed to
stretch the flag material out smoothly.
Unfortunately, Armstrong and Aldrin
were not able to get the support aim
to extend complete.
Just like a shower curtain that is not fully stretched out, the
material was left in a crumpled state.
The Apollo astronauts liked the effect so much, that they
deliberately did not extend the horizontal rod on the later flights.
And another piece of the flag system failed for Apollo 12, when
they could not get the horizontal rod to latch properly, so that the
support structure was left drooping.
The Flag in Motion
That might explain why the flag appears to be crumpled, but
what about the motion seen in the movie of the Apollo 11 flagraising ceremony?
Horizontal rod
The three components of the flag shown here are all
connected to each other.
That means if you shake or twist any one of them, a
wave will propagate through the others and they will
also start to move.
Flag
Flagpole
The amplitude of this wave will be damped by friction
at the joints, and at the point where the flagpole is
planted into the ground.
On Earth, this motion is also damped by air resistance.
The Flag in Motion
If you go back and watch the movie again, you will see
that one of the last things that Neil Armstrong* does once
the flag is in place is to give it a bit of a push.
Horizontal rod
Flag
Flagpole
* Armstrong then walks further away from the flag leaving Aldrin
to salute the flag, as shown in the image we used earlier.
The Flag in Motion
If you go back and watch the movie again, you will see
that one of the last things that Neil Armstrong* does once
the flag is in place is to give it a bit of a push.
The flag oscillates briefly, but you can
see that the amplitude is already starting
to be damped by the time Aldrin is ready
for his photograph.
There is one final piece of evidence that
would actually add support to the claim
about the waving flag…if it could be
found:
Horizontal rod
Flag
Amplitude of
oscillation
decreases
Flagpole
* Armstrong then walks further away from the flag leaving Aldrin
to salute the flag, as shown in the image we used earlier.
Blowing in the Wind
If there was a wind strong enough to blow the flag, then surely
that wind would also be able to blow dust around?
However, none of the Moon Hoax supporters seem to have
proposed that the evidence for this exists...
That dust will never
move now!
And neither will
Neil nor Buzz…
You can read more about the issues surrounding the planting of the
United States flag on the Moon at:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/mars/reference/flag/flag.html ..
Weighing up the Evidence
We have now looked at some of the evidence presented to
support the view that the Moon landings were faked:
• No stars in the pictures.
• Little dust and no crater as the Lunar Module lands.
• No smoke or flames as the Lunar Module takes off.
• The US flag waves in the vacuum of space.
In each case, it was possible to apply an alternative hypothesis
based on physical principles.
Were the hundreds of people who contributed to one of the greatest
scientific and exploratory endeavours of human history merely pulling
the wool over the eyes of the rest of the population of Earth, or did
NASA really send 12 astronauts to the Moon and return them safely?
What do you believe?
Want to Know More?
To read more about the Moon Hoax, visit these web-sites:
• An article in Wired Magazine
• “Crank.net”: http://www.crank.net/apollo.html
• Some fun Apollo images: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.funpix.html
Apollo astronauts train in a studio for their trip to the Moon.
The Mars Mystery
Having left the Moon behind, it
is time to move onto the next
case study.
On July 25th, 1976, the Viking
Orbiter 1 was searching for
Viking
Orbiter
potential landing sites for
Viking Lander 2.
One of many photographs
taken on that day was of a
region of buttes and mesas in
the northern hemisphere near
coordinates 40.8° N, 9.6° W,
known as Cydonia.
Viking Lander
North
Olympus Mons
East
West
40.8° N, 9.6° W
Mariner Valley
South
The Cydonia region was photographed from a height of 1873
kilometres (1162 miles) above the surface, with a resolution of about
43 metres (140 feet) per pixel.
This image was catalogued
as 35A72 (or P-17384). It is
shown here in its “raw” form.
The mission scientists
spotted an interesting
looking feature. Can you?
It might be more obvious if
you look at the image after
some image processing
has taken place...
This image was catalogued
as 35A72 (or P-17384). It is
shown here in its “raw” form.
The mission scientists
spotted an interesting
looking feature. Can you?
It might be more obvious if
you look at the image after
some image processing
has taken place...
35A72 (P-17384)
A press release on July 31,
1976 from the NASA Viking
News Center had this to say
about 35A72 (P-17384):
The picture shows eroded mesa-like landforms. The huge rock
formation in the center, which resembles a human head*, is
formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose and mouth.
The feature is 1.5 kilometers (one mile) across, with the sun
angle at approximately 20 degrees. The speckled appearance of
the image is due to bit errors, emphasized by enlargement of
the photo.
* Emphasis added
Producing the Image
A great deal of processing goes into producing an image
like this. The image was clipped, rotated, magnified by a
factor of three, and contrast enhanced. For example:
magnify
enhance contrast
clip
rotate
The final image appears quite blocky because a “lossy”
compression scheme has been used. We will look at one
particular processing technique in a few slides...
A Trick of the Light?
I know what this is! It’s the
face of modern astronomy!
The human visual system is
adept at picking out shapes
that look recognisable from
almost any pattern, and this
recognition system is
optimised for identifying faces.
The JPL press release was up-front in suggesting
that the “Face” was due to shadows.
But that didn’t stop some people from suggesting
that the Face was an enormous monument
constructed by an ancient Martian civilisation.
Or a Martian Civilisation?
Along with the Face, there were a flood of images
that were processed to show:
• A set of 4 Martian “pyramids” in the Elysium Planitia;
• A “pyramid” perched on the edge of a crater;
• A grid-like formation of cells called “The Inca City”’;
and so on.
Often the names for these features (like “The Face”)
were suggested by the NASA scientists who
discovered them as simple descriptions of what they
looked like.
The names were later attributed some kind of “real”
meaning to provide evidence that the Civilisation
had been active in its building campaign.
The Monuments of Mars
One of the chief proponents of the Martian
Civilisation theory has been Richard C.
Hoagland, author of “The Monuments of Mars:
A City on the Edge of Forever” (1987)*.
Over 15 years earlier, Hoagland, along with Eric
Burgess, had realised that the planned Pioneer
10 and 11 spacecraft would ultimately leave the
Solar System.
They suggested to Carl Sagan that a message should
be attached to these two spacecraft, resulting in the
preparation of the Pioneer Plaque, discussed in the
SAO Unit Introductory Radio Astronomy & SETI.
* Now in its 5th edition as of September 2001.
Hoagland’s web-site is: http://www.enterprisemission.com
First work
Many of Hoagland’s, and other author’s, contentions
are based on the “pioneering” work on the Face
undertaken by Gregory Molenaar and Vince DiPietro.
During the late 1970s, Molenaar and DiPietro were
working as contract programmers to NASA at the
Goddard Space Flight Centre.
After seeing copies of the Face photographs, they
decided to see if they could improve the image quality.
In 1980, they set to work developing an image
processing algorithm known as SPIT: Starburst Pixel
Interleaving Technique.
They worked on the project after hours, using
borrowed NASA equipment.
A total of 10 images of the Face were available...
How SPIT Works
For each complete Viking image, there were 1204 pixels for each
of the 1056 lines, with the Face covering a much smaller number
of pixels than this. Every pixel is a shade of grey.
Consider a small part of the
image covering 3x3 pixels.
Each pixel can be black, white,
or a shade of grey somewhere in
between.
What SPIT does initially is subdivide each pixel into 9 smaller
pixels.
The grey-scale values for these
new pixels are determined by the
values of adjacent pixels.
How SPIT Works
The original range of grey scale values was between 60 and 108.
255 = white
Grey-108
Grey-60
0 = black
How SPIT Works
The original range of grey scale values was between 60 and 108.
This was stretched out over a much larger range to increase the
contrast in the images.
255 = white
Grey-108
Grey-60
0 = black
Additional
enhancement was
used in order to
highlight slight
changes between
nearby pixels that
were almost the
same shade of grey.
This is similar to an
edge detection
algorithm.
Processing the Results
DiPietro and Molenaar published their results in a document
called Unusual Martian Surface Features, and presented their
results at the June 1980 meeting of the American
Astronomical Society.
They suggested that their image processing had highlighted
the existence of an eye-ball within the eye-socket, and
evidence for a second eye so that the Face was symmetric.
The results of SPIT or any other image processing technique
must be approached with caution, as often they do not
actually introduce any new information. Instead, they
enhance some features (that our visual system is then able to
interpret more easily) at the expense of others.
Where to Next
What was really needed was a higher resolution
image, and one where the dominant features were not
due to the strong shadows.
That higher resolution image was to arrive in 1998,
with the successful Mars Global Surveyor mission
(following some spectacular failures of probes such as
the Soviet Phobos 1 and 2, and NASA’s Mars Orbiter).
And here is what Mars Global Surveyor photographed
on 5 April 1998:
Without the shadows, and the improved resolution,
can you still see the Face?
Note that this image is slightly stretched and distorted as it
was not taken from exactly the same height and orientation
as the original.
Not the End of the Story
It appeared that the Face really
was just a trick of the shadows.
Unfortunately, the new image did
not satisfy all of the artificial
Face proponents, as it had also
undergone a level of processing.
There were suggestions of
further conspiracies and coverups, filling many Internet sites.
An even higher resolution image was taken by Mars
Global Surveyor on 8 April, 2001*.
* For details, visit:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/moc_5_24_01/face/index.html
July 1976
In the the most recent of the three
images, it is possible to see several of the
features which coincide with the eyes,
nose and mouth of the original Face.
However, it is unlikely that an advanced
civilisation was needed to construct this
otherwise unremarkable surface feature.
April 1998
April 2001
But just like the
Moon Hoax, it
comes down to a
question of what
you choose to
believe.
The Other Face on Mars
On March 1999, the Mars Orbital
Camera on Mars Global Surveyor
took this photograph of the Galle
Crater in the Argyre Planitia.
For obvious reasons it is know
as the Happy Face Crater.
There do not seem to be any
suggestions that this is an
artificial monument…yet.
Diameter:
215 km (134 miles)
The End
In this Activity, we have looked at two case studies where
extraordinary claims have been made:
• That the Moon landings were a hoax; and
• That there is an artificial Face constructed by an ancient race
of Martians.
When these claims are held up to skeptical scrutiny, they do not
hold as completely satisfactory hypotheses - particularly in the
face (sorry!) of new evidence.
However, no matter how hard scientists have tried, these are
two not-so-great debates that just don’t seem to go away.
This brings the SAO Unit Great Debates in Astronomy to an
end…except for a final word from the author of this Activity.
Confessions of an SAO Author
I have to admit that while researching this Activity, I was
quite often astounded and highly amused by some of the
“Conspiracy” web-pages I encountered on the Internet.
Am I of guilty of hypocrisy by suggesting that science
and skeptism should work one way, but not applying the
same “toolkit” myself?
Perhaps.
Recently after presenting a public talk that touched on
such topics as the formation of galaxies, and the
distribution of dark matter within the Universe, a member
of the audience asked me whether I believed in what I
was saying.
My response was:
• That I had sufficient confidence in the ideas to present
them to a public audience.
• That as a scientist, I should only “believe” in these theories
as far as they stand up to rigorous testing, and that if a
future observation clearly falsified the existence of dark
matter, etc., I would be quite happy to move on to the next
theory.
• That I wasn’t just a trained scientist - I was also a person,
and therefore should be allowed to think and believe
almost anything I wanted!
What do you believe?
Image Credits
NASA: Buzz Aldrin walks on surface on Moon during Apollo 11 EVA
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_40_5903.html
NASA: Official photo of Apollo 11 prime crew - Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/s69_31740.html
NASA: Apollo 11 Lunar Module takeoff
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075283.jpg
NASA: View of rising Earth about five degrees above the Lunar horizon
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS8/10074963.jpg
NASA: Buzz Aldrin descends from the Apollo 11 lander
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_40_5868.html
NASA: Charles Conrad Jr, Apollo 12
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo12/html/as12-47-6988.html
NASA: Exterior view of damaged Apollo 13 Service Module
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS13/10075514.jpg
NASA: Footprints near the Apollo 11 Lunar Module
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_40_5902.html
Image Credits
NASA: Apollo 14 Lunar Module
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS14/10075610.jpg
NASA: Launch of Apollo 11/Saturn V
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075233.jpg
NASA: Apollo 11 Lunar Module Ascent Stage
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_44_6626.html
NASA: Exterior view of damaged Apollo 13 Service Module
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS13/10075514.jpg
NASA: Astronaut Buzz Aldrin after planting a U.S. flag on the lunar surface
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5874.jpg
NASA: Broken Flag from Apollo 12 with Pete Conrad
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/as12-47-6897.jpg
NASA: Astronaut Gene Cernan salutes the U.S. flag on the Moon
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS17/10075952.jpg
NASA: Tests of the US Flag for the Moon
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075189.jpg
Image Credits
NASA: Lunar Landing Simulation
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075214.jpg
NASA NSSDC Photo Gallery: Viking Orbiter
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/spacecraft/viking_orbiter.jpg
NASA NSSDC Photo Gallery: Viking Lander
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/spacecraft/viking_lander.jpg
NASA Laboratory for Terrestrial Physics: Shaded Mars Surface Map
http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/mercatsmall.gif
NASA NSSDC Photo Gallery: Raw Viking Image 035A72
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mars/f035a72_raw.jpg
NASA NSSDC Photo Gallery: Processed Viking Image 035A72
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mars/f035a72_processed.jpg
NASA/JPL: Face on Mars Press Release Photograph
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/cydonia/pio_med.gif
Face on Mars Processed Image: NASA NSSDC Photo Gallery
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mars/face.jpg
Image Credits
Viking image of Cydonia region (f035a72):
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/image/f035a72_strip.gif
Mars Global Surveyor image of Face (5 April 1998)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/mars/mgs_cydonia1_processed.jpg
NASA: Mars Global Surveyor image of Cydonia region
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/image/cydonia1.gif
Mars Global Surveyor image of Face (8 April 2001)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/image/mgs_cydonia3.jpg
Happy Face Crater: NASA/JPL
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/3_11_99_happy/moc2_89_msss.jpg
Movie Credits
NASA: Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set up the
American flag on the Moon's surface.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo11/html/lunar_activities.html
NASA: The Apollo 11 Lunar Module ascends from the lunar surface.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo11/html/lunar_activities.html
End of Unit
Press the ESC (Escape) key to return
to the home page for this Module.