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

polishpaddy

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

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

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

lucky-colm

its quite obvious that nasa will be staging this event aswell

lucky-colm

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.

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

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

Ostrom

Mahatma coat wrote: »

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

Good one

espinolman

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

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

watty

This won't convince people already not conviced.

Penn

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

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

toiletduck

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

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

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

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

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

it was controlled by a tv controller back in houston

4leto

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

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

4leto

To the rest of the Warsaw pact,

dimejinky99

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

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

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

4leto

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

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

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

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

watty

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

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.

briktop

briktop wrote: »

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

How exactly would the Van Allen Belts stop people going into space?
How much radiation exactly do you get as you pass through it?

briktop wrote: »

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

Which ones?
There's detailed video of all shuttle launches and landings and the ISS has had new stuff installed on most missions?
Why the hell would they fake the shuttle missions?

samson09

briktop wrote: »

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.

Did anyone see the latest shuttle pass over Ireland the other night? Pretty amazing really and defintely not faked. In my opinion we arent told half of what our governments are doing up there. I dont really know a lot about this subject but here's my 2 cents anyway .

ihatewallies

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.

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.

I've seen all their arguments.

And I mean ALL of them. I've studied it - seen the DVDs, films, etc etc

All their science is laughably wrong for any serious scientist though for the layman there would be some doubts.
Not all technology is easily understood, some is counter intuitive. For example - the Lunar lander, while appearing very unstable, due to the use of gyroscopes is actually safer to land than a conventional gliding (air)craft.
And going further into that - one of the hoax theorists 'scientific' proofs is that the Lander would crash as the crew would destabilise it with any shift of weight/centre of gravity.
In actual fact the rockets which power the lander have also to cope with the centre of gravity changing as fuel is depleted.
The whole science of the hoax theorists is schoolboy howler stuff.
Every single scientific point they make is nonsense.


From that I deduce, and agree with the universally held conclusion that the hoax theorists believe it was a hoax, not on the grounds of any evidence, but because they want to believe it.

The idea that gov is lying and out to fool you is paramount to them.

briktop

i want to say one thing - I was an apollo fan , since being a baby.

and knew everything about the flights , and it was crushing to realise when the evidence out there is examined - that most - if not all , the flights never happened.

they went in to earth orbit , and faked the lot in a studio .

and for sure ap 11 and armstrong never went anywhere near the moon.

have a look at jarrah white s videos on you tube . it may take some time , but its worth it - particularly the radiation ones.

there is nothing laughable about the science fact that van allen discovered belts of radiation that would fry any human in a matter of hours- and those guys would have been exposed to 8 hours of the belts per flight at least .


the radiation ones also pertain some SOME shuttle missions tv downloads being faked - IMO still consdiering this one -

but apollo - definitley has a nasty smell about it .

and so does any space flight outside 400 miles or so of the planet .
they tested it in gemini and realised they would be crisped if they flew any further.

the south altlantic anonamly alone is an issue for the shuttle - so imagine what the full belts would do to you .

even if the belts didnt exist - do you think you can safely fly around a star which is spewing un shielded hi energy radiation in every direction ?

if you get a sunburn in 20 minutes at sea level after the UV going thru the atmosphere
imagine what the hell else is out there in open space.

the sun is an 800000 mile wide H bomb - youd need at least 2 inches of lead to fly to the moon and back , and no way youd walk on it .



if you have shedloads of money , and you know you cannot go to the moon , because you will die - the only option when your president promised it - is to fake it .

humanji

Here;s a link to the science behind passing the Van Allen Belt. You can check the figures yourself, if you want: http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

briktop

briktop wrote: »

i want to say one thing - I was an apollo fan , since being a baby.

and knew everything about the flights , and it was crushing to realise when the evidence out there is examined - that most - if not all , the flights never happened.

they went in to earth orbit , and faked the lot in a studio .

and for sure ap 11 and armstrong never went anywhere near the moon.

have a look at jarrad whites videos on you tube . it may take some time , but its worth it - particularly the radiation ones.

there is nothing laughable about the science fact that van allen discovered belts of radiation that would fry any human in a matter of hours- and those guys would have been exposed to 8 hours of the belts per flight at least .


the radiation ones also pertain some SOME shuttle missions tv downloads being faked - IMO still consdiering this one -

but apollo - definitley has a nasty smell about it .

and so does any space flight outside 400 miles or so of the planet .
they tested it in gemini and realised they would be crisped if they flew any further.

the south altlantic anonamly alone is an issue for the shuttle - so imagine what the full belts would do to you .

even if the belts didnt exist - do you think you can safely fly around a star which is spewing un shielded hi energy radiation in every direction ?

if you get a sunburn in 20 minutes at sea level after the UV going thru the atmosphere
imagine what the hell else is out there in open space.

the sun is an 800000 mile wide H bomb - youd need at least 2 inches of lead to fly to the moon and back , and no way youd walk on it .



if you have shedloads of money , and you know you cannot go to the moon , because you will die - the only option when your president promised it - is to fake it .

And how much radiation exactly did they receive going through the Belts?

Have you noticed that if you cover up your body you don't get sunburn?

Did you know that the most dangerous (does the most damage) type of radiation is blocked by a sheet of paper?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle

Did you know that the second most dangerous type of radiation is stopped by a sheet of aluminium?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle

So how much radiation do you get exposed to going thruogh the Van Allen Belts?

The first images are in:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

The Apollo 14 one is the best.

briktop

so explain why no other craft has ventured out side 400 miles or so then ?

except appolo , and the tests of gemini ?

surely wed like to go alot further out , if we could , but we cant - there you go


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM&feature=related

etc

briktop

briktop wrote: »

so explain why no other craft has ventured out side 400 miles or so then ?

except appolo , and the tests of gemini ?

surely wed like to go alot further out , if we could , but we cant - there you go

Because there hasn't been missions that needed to?
Because there wasn't the funds or public support for more moon missions?
Because Nasa shifted it's focus to setting up a space station and then focused on developing the shuttle?

We do want to go further out but a mission to Mars is completely different to a moon mission. The biggest difference is that it would take six months to actually get there,

So how much radiation do you get going through the belts?
How exactly do you know it will kill any of the astronauts?

Did you read the link Humanji posted?

And why didn't Russia (who sent a few probes to the Moon) not point out the fact the radiation would kill the astronauts and thereby expose the fraud?

ihatewallies

This is my last comment on this, because as other posters have pointed out, the hoax theorists cannot be convinced by any evidence - they 'know' it's all a fake.

There are very many clincher arguments why the lunar landings were real, but the one about the Russians is very good.

The argument we are given is that the landings were faked to get one over the Russians in the cold war.

But the Russians had a serious space program of their own (they put the 1st man into orbit).
They had the radio and tracking equipment to monitor anything the Americans did.
They would know for example if the Apollo mission was really in orbit around the moon as well as all the other key details.
If they believed the US was faking the Moon trips they would have been the 1st onto the rooftops crying 'FOUL!".
Given the emnity between the USA and Russia, I suspect they would have cried 'foul' even if they believed the landings were real but couldn't be proved.

Instead, the Russians readily accept that the moon landings were real.

The Van Allen belt is not as dangerous as the bogus science of the hoax theorists allege.
You would have to remain in the belt for many days to even be in any minimal danger - the astronauts pass through it in a couple of hours.

Again the Russians would have been the 1st crying that no astronauts could survive the Van Allen belt - if this was true.

There is not one shred of evidence that the whole thing was faked - every argument of the hoax theorists is laughable schoolboy howler science.

Now, if you argue that something is a lie and a con, then you yourself have to be 100% impeccable in your arguments - you cannot resort to lies yourself.
But as each nonsense scientific point of the hoaxers is dismantled, they want to move onto another argument, they are not detered by the fact that their argument was a childish misunderstanding of the science.

On this point alone their integrity is shredded.

There will always be people ready to believe anything no matter how cracked.
Some people cannot understand simple scientific concepts.

I had an interesting discussion with one such who told me that rockets couldn't possibly travel in the vacuum of space because, as there was no 'air' ,the rocket propulsion would have nothing to 'press' against and so would just burn and the rocket would remain motionless.

I'll bet there's a few hoax theorists reading this who'll think I've just given them another reason why the whole thing was a fake.......:D

bonkey

ihatewallies wrote: »

they are not detered by the fact that their argument was a childish misunderstanding of the science.

You're treading very close to insulting other members of this forum with comments like that.

Run_to_da_hills

Modern Hollywood type FX and Photoshop can work wonders. :rolleyes:

DubTony

I just know that if I posted pictures like those that Mob linked to, as proof of anything, I could certainly expect to be challenged on it.

Those pictures are hardly conclusive evidence. Google can see my car in the driveway. I'm looking forward to this thing doing a lot better.

When is the LROC expected to reach it's final orbit?

ihatewallies

bonkey wrote: »

You're treading very close to insulting other members of this forum with comments like that.

<mod snip> personal abuse wont be tolerated <snip>

6th

ihatewallies banned for 1 week.

Moriarty

DubTony wrote: »

Those pictures are hardly conclusive evidence. Google can see my car in the driveway. I'm looking forward to this thing doing a lot better.

The high resolution images are taken from planes, not satellites. Ever wondered why you can only make out splodges of green and sea for most of the planet on google maps/earth? They'd be the satellite images. They're only going to pay for a plane to survey places that enough people are interested in.

DubTony

DubTony wrote: »

I just know that if I posted pictures like those that Mob linked to, as proof of anything, I could certainly expect to be challenged on it.

Those pictures are hardly conclusive evidence. Google can see my car in the driveway. I'm looking forward to this thing doing a lot better.

When is the LROC expected to reach it's final orbit?

The difference is though no one is relying on these pictures as proof.

There's a metric ton of other stuff that does prove we went to the moon.

Beeker

briktop wrote: »

so explain why no other craft has ventured out side 400 miles or so then ?

except appolo , and the tests of gemini ?

surely wed like to go alot further out , if we could , but we cant - there you go


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM&feature=related

etc

Why oh why, if you were to fake it...would you do it 6 times? We landed on the moon and will do it again...FACT!

DubTony

King Mob wrote: »

The difference is though no one is relying on these pictures as proof.

There's a metric ton of other stuff that does prove we went to the moon.

Granted. But the perfect proof to dispel the "theory" is photographs.So does anyone know when this thing will reach its final orbit?

I presume Mahatma Coat still wants to see Sheppards golf ball.

DubTony

DubTony wrote: »

Granted. But the perfect proof to dispel the "theory" is photographs.So does anyone know when this thing will reach its final orbit?

I presume Mahatma Coat still wants to see Sheppards golf ball.

According to wikipeida it's still in its commissioning phase where they're powering up and test the various instruments.
This will last about 60 days.

But even when they are in final orbit, the resoultion will still be only 2-3 times better.
The images still won't convince believers.

I doubt there'd be any rush for them to image the landers again now that the anniversary has passed.
Nasa has better thing to do.