NASA To Take Photos Of Lunar Landing Sites, End Conspiracy Theories

polishpaddy · 08-07-2009 10:40pm #1

NASA To Take Photos Of Lunar Landing Sites, End Conspiracy Theories

By Jesus Diaz on July 8, 2009 at 5:59 AM

Suck it up, conspiracy theorists, because soon your cuckoo stories about the US simulating the Moon landings will be over forever. NASA has confirmed to Gizmodo that the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will take photos of all the Apollo landing sites:
Jesus Diaz: Would the LRO return images of the moon landings when it flies over them?
Grey Hautaluoma (NASA Headquarters, Office of Public Affairs): Yes, it will. We don’t have a timeline yet for viewing the Apollo sites, but it will be in the near future.

There you have it. Soon we will have photos showing the remains of the Apollo Lunar Modules, also known as LEM (Lunar Excursion Module.) Built by Grumman Aircraft Engineering, the Lunar Module was 20.9-foot tall, with a 14 feet diameter and a landing gear span of 29.75 feet.
However, the Lunar Reconnoissance Orbiter will only be able to take photos of what is known as the Descent Stage, the bottom part of the LEM that housed the main propulsion system. This part was left on the Moon’s surface, while the Ascent Stage launched after each mission to rendezvous with the Command Module orbiting around the Moon.

Other remains left on the Moon include the Lunar Roving Vehicles, used in Apollo J-class missions: Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17. Since they are 3-meter long, the LRO will be able to distinguish them as well.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/07/nasa-to-take-photos-of-lunar-landing-sites-end-conspiracy-theories/

Ostrom · 08-07-2009 10:56pm

They will just cry fake to these also, there is no argument

We will probably have to wait for the first constellation missions before any of this goes away

Some test videos of the new rover are doing the rounds....

Mahatma coat · 08-07-2009 11:02pm

I think Definitive Proof would be finding Alan Shepherds golfball:D:D

lucky-colm · 08-07-2009 11:07pm

its quite obvious that nasa will be staging this event aswell

08-07-2009 11:55pm

lucky-colm wrote: »

its quite obvious that nasa will be staging this event aswell

Yes, very obvious.

It doesn't matter what form of proof NASA produces, the conspiracy theorists will find an avenue of "logic" to argue against it.

King Mob · 09-07-2009 12:01am

Here's a good article on the why it won't end the conspiracies.

http://cumbriansky.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/lro-and-the-apollo-hoax-believers/

Has a great mock up of what the Apollo 11 site might look like from the LRO.

AMIIAM · 09-07-2009 12:04am

Why would any sane-minded person believe what NASA says? Aren't they American?

Ostrom · 09-07-2009 12:06am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I think Definitive Proof would be finding Alan Shepherds golfball:D:D

Good one

espinolman · 09-07-2009 1:43am

polishpaddy wrote: »

NASA To Take Photos Of Lunar Landing Sites, End Conspiracy Theories

NASA has confirmed to Gizmodo that the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will take photos of all the Apollo landing sites:

.

Oh , they are going to photo where then filmed the lumar landings in the nevada desert .

Overblood · 09-07-2009 2:13am

I wonder could it get a few pics of the alien moonbases too.

watty · 09-07-2009 8:22am

This won't convince people already not conviced.

Penn · 09-07-2009 8:25am

This is the same as all theories.

Theorists: We demand that the Government tells us the truth!
Government: Ok, the truth is there is no conspiracy
Theorists: LIARS!

Mahatma coat · 09-07-2009 8:32am

I wonder will we get the same resolution images of the 'back' of the moon??

toiletduck · 09-07-2009 11:33am

It won't convince them.

The "rebuttals" I see coming from when the images are released

* the photos have been doctored
* the yanks DID land a module there but it was unmanned, and was merely to throw off this sorta event
* generic "can't trust NASA" excuses

I remember reading a poster here saying that a Russian photo of the site would convince him. Bollocks. I can see a "Ruskies being paid off" theory in the works for that scenario.

In short nothing will do.

bonkey · 09-07-2009 12:08pm

toiletduck wrote: »

In short nothing will do.

I'm not sure this is the case...particularly not when you look at individuals rather than blanketing all those who believe in or suspect a faked landing with the same logic.

On an individual basis, the question should always be asked: what will it take for you to accept that <some position> is wrong.

This question is unbiased. Its as valid for people who believe that NASA really did land men on the moon in 1969, the way they said they did as it is for people who believe that they didn't go there, or they went there but didn't land, or that they sent an unmanned craft there (which did or didn't land), or that alien technology was involved, or....

Until someone can define what it would take to convince them that a position is wrong, then they can never, under any circumstances, be convinced that some other position is right.

So rather than knocking people because they'll never accept evidence that some position they don't hold is true, I believe they should be asked what it would take to convince them that the position they hold is wrong.

This, of course, doesn't hold true for those who claim to sit on the fence....they don't hold a position, so they can't be convinced that it is wrong. They should, however, be able to define what it would take for them to rule out specific positions....to narrow the fence they're sitting on, so to speak.

If the question cannot be answered, or can only be answered with something which is impossible (or sufficiently improbable to be considered impossible), then you've established that "nothing will do". On the other hand, if an answer is supplied, then you've got something to work with.

Ostrom · 09-07-2009 6:00pm

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not sure this is the case...particularly not when you look at individuals rather than blanketing all those who believe in or suspect a faked landing with the same logic.

On an individual basis, the question should always be asked: what will it take for you to accept that <some position> is wrong.

Does your suggestion not reproduce the same fallacy of logic? It certainly speaks to a similar broad assumption on the reasoning of non-believers. Its the same argument every time with people like that - we are expected to disprove their assumptions

bonkey wrote: »

Until someone can define what it would take to convince them that a position is wrong, then they can never, under any circumstances, be convinced that some other position is right.

Why bother, such views are often baseless and ill-informed?

bonkey · 09-07-2009 7:56pm

efla wrote: »

Does your suggestion not reproduce the same fallacy of logic?

I don't believe so.

I'm saying that we shouldn't blanket everyone with an assumption, but rather should ask them a question to let them show whether or not the assumption applies to them.

The notion of disproving an idea is taken directly from the scientific method. If you believe there is a fallacy of logic in that notion, then I'd be most curious as to what you believe it is.

The notion of proof (outside of mathematics) is, on the other hand, pretty-much non-existant. We can't prove anything. We can't prove that anything in the past happened, nor can we prove that something in the future will happen....we can only (in both cases) state with a degree of confidence that something did or will happen.

Disproof, on the other hand, is absolute. If we make a prediction based on something, and that prediction fails, then the basis on which it was made must be flawed.

Its the same argument every time with people like that - we are expected to disprove their assumptions

I'm saying that we're supposed to ask them what it would take to disprove their position....not try and guess what would constitute disproof.

If you want to convince other people that the idea is wrong, you show why you believe the argument is flawed. If you want to try and convince the holder of a belief, you need to know what they would require to change their belief.

Why bother, such views are often baseless and ill-informed?

If such views are often baseless and ill-informed, then they're sometimes not baseless and ill-informed.

Shouldn't that reason enough not to dismiss them all?

dimejinky99 · 10-07-2009 6:26pm

Two and a half questions:
1.Who is operating this camera and how did they get the camera and footage from the camera back if this is the Lunar Module leaving the surface of the moon in this clip?

2. Why does the module stop at a certain height? in no footage that is available do we see it continue on into space, surely it's on a crane?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obd_jTO66-0

skelliser · 10-07-2009 6:41pm

it was controlled by a tv controller back in houston

4leto · 10-07-2009 6:49pm

dimejinky99 wrote: »

Two and a half questions:
1.Who is operating this camera and how did they get the camera and footage from the camera back if this is the Lunar Module leaving the surface of the moon in this clip?

2. Why does the module stop at a certain height? in no footage that is available do we see it continue on into space, surely it's on a crane?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obd_jTO66-0

If they did not land on the moon at the height of the cold war, why did't the Russians squeal on them.

dimejinky99 · 10-07-2009 6:57pm

Squeal to who? none of the allied US countries would have reported it if they had done.

4leto · 10-07-2009 7:13pm

To the rest of the Warsaw pact,

dimejinky99 · 10-07-2009 7:31pm

Media suppression perhaps? also there'd be no way the Russians could prove they didn't. Nasa had all the photos and video. Perhaps it was them started the conspiracy theories about it being fake?

4leto · 10-07-2009 7:53pm

The Russians had the tracking radar as the previous year 1968 the russians sent an orbital probe that encircled the moon.

Plus their is a lot of moon rock on Earth, I suppose they could have been brought here from space faring Yetis or lizards in UFOs. Whom are trying to capture the loch Ness monster and in the meantime they go about murdering princess Di, Micheal Jackson, JF Kennedy and ML King.

Conspiracy theories they make us feel we know something, that the world is not controlled by random events, I tried to subscribe to the conspiracy magazine but they kept asking me why do you want to subscribe, for what, what are your motives, then they didn't believe me and wouldn't let me subscribe.

dimejinky99 · 10-07-2009 7:57pm

and becuase of that you don't believe some of the theories?

4leto · 10-07-2009 8:04pm

Whattttt I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, 1 thing you can be assured of man are crap at keeping secrets, eventually everything comes out.

This stupid conspiracy theory has its origins in a film Capricorn one, it was a thriller about the moon landing been faked someone found out then etc, it was a good film but only that a film.

Undergod · 11-07-2009 11:44am

4leto wrote: »

This stupid conspiracy theory has its origins in a film Capricorn one, it was a thriller about the Mars landing been faked someone found out then etc, it was a good film but only that a film.

Saw that movie when I was a kid.

there'd be no way the Russians could prove they didn't.

The russians were tracking Apollo 18 the entire way, they had radio trained on it. I don't know how you can fake radio transmissions from space.

watty · 11-07-2009 12:36pm

Radio Moscow was and is easily received World Wide. I certainly occasionally listened to it in 1966 and later. Along with Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, VOA, BBC World and others. In early 1970s I used to get "HCJB, The Voice of the Andes." from Quito in Ecuador at breakfast time. Soviet Block stations in English were available world wide on cheap domestic Shortwave Radio.

But you'll never convince the people with faith in their theories. Of course you can fake the Moon Transmissions. You have a large directional aerial array in a valley (for shielding) with high power transmitter and bounce the transmissions off the Moon.

Moonbounce transmission is a hobby these days.

Undergod · 11-07-2009 1:41pm

But bouncing off the moon can't fake transmissions from a craft on its way there.

watty · 12-07-2009 8:58am

Probably not.

Also even the moonBounce needs very many Earth-Stations to maintain the signal as the earth rotates/day passes. It's not believable that so many sites with such a large staff could be used with such a hoax in so many countries. The simpler explanation (a real transmission) is much easier to believe.

briktop · 17-07-2009 2:59pm

you are never going to see shots of the moon sites , they do not exist .
they will keep telling you they will shoot them , but they wont .

although NASA did send craft to the moon, not one man was on them .
and they sent saturns into earth orbit only .

the van allen belts make sure that
humans cannot fly more than 500 k or so from the planet.

it was all a very convincing and expensive fake .

sad, i was was huge fan of apollo and the missions , but the evidance is now compelling
that it never happend .

it alo looks like alot of the so called shuttle missions are faked as well.

NASA To Take Photos Of Lunar Landing Sites, End Conspiracy Theories

Comments