Nasa release photos of moon landing site

WalterMitty

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14813043

Will this end the conspiracy talk?

fontanalis

WalterMitty wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14813043

Will this end the conspiracy talk?

Sure it will.

Fallschirmjager

doubt it...have they not been bouncing laser beams off material left up there for that purpose to measure distances etc? i seem to recall i read that somewhere.

i am guessing if they didnt believe that - they wont believe this...

squod

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

doubt it...have they not been bouncing laser beams off material left up there for that purpose to measure distances etc? i seem to recall i read that somewhere.

i am guessing if they didnt believe that - they wont believe this...

Out of the billions of photons that are sent only a few come back. NASA/LRO released those photos a long time ago OP. Proves nothing.

youcancallmeal

Looks shopped to me

The_Kew_Tour

where is the flag gone?;)

o1s1n

Damn crazy NASA. Looks like they sent people up to fake those tracks.

orangebud

moon conspiracy thats old news the new hip conspiracy is the star wars program
fracking cylons

foxinsox

This is too serious for AH


I read it as "Naas release photos of ..... "

Wibbs

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

doubt it...have they not been bouncing laser beams off material left up there for that purpose to measure distances etc? i seem to recall i read that somewhere.

i am guessing if they didnt believe that - they wont believe this...

+1. TBH I've a lot of time for some conspiracy theories. If nothing else they can be interesting, but every single so called argument I've seen from the Apollo deniers is either utterly and eyeswivelingly moronic or seriously misinformed, only believable by some lump of goo passing as human sitting in a trailer in the mid west, gorging on Jesus, pies and Oprah.

Ruu_Old

There is no Moon!

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

Out of the billions of photons that are sent only a few come back..

Source please. I mean actual source not some gimp on youtube taking a well earned break from fapping.

NASA/LRO released those photos a long time ago OP.

Eh no. They Didn't. They released pics of various landing sites but from a higher altitude. Twice the altitude in fact. The LRO has dropped from 50km above the lunar surface to 25KM, hence higher res pics.

Proves nothing

It adds way more than it subtracts. Unless you want to believe that a) it's photoshopery, or b) they sent up the stuff unmanned and filmed the manned stuff in a back lot in Universal pictures.

Solnskaya

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. TBH I've a lot of time for some conspiracy theories. If nothing else they can be interesting, but every single so called argument I've seen from the Apollo deniers is either utterly and eyeswivelingly moronic or seriously misinformed, only believable by some lump of goo passing as human sitting in a trailer in the mid west, gorging on pies and Oprah.

I think the whole Apollo thing is a total fraud and madey-uppey American propagandist crap. No way could he have lasted that long against Rocky.

Mint Sauce

Its just an aerial pic of the recording studio.

:rolleyes:

RichieC

I seen this months ago, why is it on the new today?

TheZohanS

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. TBH I've a lot of time for some conspiracy theories. If nothing else they can be interesting, but every single so called argument I've seen from the Apollo deniers is either utterly and eyeswivelingly moronic or seriously misinformed, only believable by some lump of goo passing as human sitting in a trailer in the mid west, gorging on Jesus, pies and Oprah.

Proof.

Your move Wibbs...your move...

cyrusdvirus

WalterMitty wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14813043

Will this end the conspiracy talk?

Good lord, no. Of course the moon landings were faked. This is NASA. An arm of the US government. The VERY SAME US government that faked the Sept 11th attacks. The Twin Towers were NOT brought down by hijacked airliners. It's quite simple. THEY NEVER EXISTED. It's all a hoax perpetrated by the Lizard People, who created the original cylons, none of these fancy rebooted Battlestar Galactica cylons for us, nope it's the original ones.

Think about it. Tin Foil Hats. Apparently they keep your thoughts safe.
Look at a picture of an original Cylon. Yep, shiny steel that looks like tin foil. Coincidence? I don't think so.

The people who WEAR the tin foil hats ARE the lizard people!

Killer Pigeon

Wow, it looks like NASA have mastered photoshop ... at last!

Duckworth_Luas

WalterMitty wrote: »

Will this end the conspiracy talk?

Faking the moon landing = easy!
Altering some photos = impossible!

Kevin Duffy

Ruu wrote: »

There is no Moon!

Oh yeh? Then what did NASA fake a landing on it for?? Hah! Get out of that!

pablomakaveli

gatecrash wrote: »

Good lord, no. Of course the moon landings were faked. This is NASA. An arm of the US government. The VERY SAME US government that faked the Sept 11th attacks. The Twin Towers were NOT brought down by hijacked airliners. It's quite simple. THEY NEVER EXISTED. It's all a hoax perpetrated by the Lizard People, who created the original cylons, none of these fancy rebooted Battlestar Galactica cylons for us, nope it's the original ones.

Think about it. Tin Foil Hats. Apparently they keep your thoughts safe.
Look at a picture of an original Cylon. Yep, shiny steel that looks like tin foil. Coincidence? I don't think so.

The people who WEAR the tin foil hats ARE the lizard people!

I heard they were assisted by crab people and the aliens who assasinated JFK and the loch ness monster.

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

Source please. I mean actual source not some gimp on youtube taking a well earned break from fapping.

The source is the BBC. Google it for yourself.

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh no. They Didn't. They released pics of various landing sites but from a higher altitude.

The pics in the OP aren't the same resolution as those in the NASA website and have been around for some time.

Wibbs wrote: »

The LRO has dropped from 50km above the lunar surface to 25KM, hence higher res pics. It adds way more than it subtracts. Unless you want to believe that a) it's photoshopery, or b) they sent up the stuff unmanned and filmed the manned stuff in a back lot in Universal pictures.

Believe in whatever fantasy you want. I'm not your mother and I'm not about to tell you what you can and can't believe in. Take a look at any of the previous threads we've posted in. You've heard the rebuttal before.

squod

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584398main_M168353795RE_25cm_AP12_area.jpg

For anyone interested.

Notorious97

Ah im kind of late to the thread, i see the tin foil brigade are in tonight.

El Weirdo

Wibbs wrote: »

Source please. I mean actual source not some gimp on youtube taking a well earned break from fapping.

http://www.universetoday.com/59310/it%E2%80%99s-not-just-the-astronauts-that-are-getting-older/

A typical APOLLO observing session involves shooting the laser at the largest of the LRRRs (Apollo 15’s) over a ‘run’ of four to eight minutes. Each shot sends about 1017 photons to the Moon, from which only one returned photon per shot may be detected. This is why the laser is shot thousands of times at a 20 Hz repetition rate during each run.

Although, I'm not too sure how that backs up conspiracy claims.

hmmm

There's a fabulous series on Nat Geo about "NASA's greatest missions". The flights from Apollo 8 to 10 were precursors to 11 with lots of video shot, and frankly why bother if they were going to fake the landing I particularly liked how on Apollo 10, which tested the lunar lander just above the lunar surface, they deliberately short fueled the lander, just in case the pilots decided to say "f**k it, I'm going to land".

The Snipe

'Shopped.

Also..


Screenshot or it never happened!

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

The source is the BBC. Google it for yourself.

Ok. El Weirdo provided the sources and fair enough.

The pics in the OP aren't the same resolution as those in the NASA website and have been around for some time.

Which means nada given the new pics are of a higher resolution. Here's a nit. lets pick it.

Believe in whatever fantasy you want. I'm not your mother and I'm not about to tell you what you can and can't believe in. Take a look at any of the previous threads we've posted in. You've heard the rebuttal before.

Yep and I thought them misinformed bollocks then and misinformed bollocks now. Radiation too high beyond the Van Allen belts? Tell that to the sensitive equipment of every human thrown artificial wanderer out there. Including your satellite telly pics and GPS on your phone. Faked photos using a studio? Brush up on photography. Oh and look at the full films brought back. Spot the "oh shíte I've chopped of his head in the frame" ones. Gloves don't work in a vacuum? Well fcuk knows how they got the ISS built then. No blast crater under the LEM? Learn more about rocketry and the makeup of the moons surface. They stayed in near earth orbit? Well then tell that to the Russians who tracked their progress all the way at the height of the cold war, a hearts and minds war they were desperate to win. Unless... unless they were in on it too. :eek::eek: The list is long and it's a longer list than the paltry list against it. Several magnitudes longer.

4leto

At the height of the cold war if NASA faked the moonlandings the Russians who also had a moon programme would have squealed on them.

The King of Moo

Oh you poor misguided sheeple...

THERE IS NO NASA!!

Think about it...

No

Aeronautics

and

Space

Administration

It's so obvious!! They're hiding the truth in plain sight!

Ghandee

The astronaut's on the moon didn't like the disco up there.
They said it had no atmosphere.

120_Minutes

hmmm wrote: »

There's a fabulous series on Nat Geo about "NASA's greatest missions". The flights from Apollo 8 to 10 were precursors to 11 with lots of video shot, and frankly why bother if they were going to fake the landing I particularly liked how on Apollo 10, which tested the lunar lander just above the lunar surface, they deliberately short fueled the lander, just in case the pilots decided to say "f**k it, I'm going to land".

Got the DVD box set a while back in easons for 9.99. Bargain. Also I enjoyed the miniseries "from the earth to the moon" produced by Tom hanks who has a serious hard on for the apollo program.

Also I recommend the books "failure is not an option" by gene kranz, "moon dust" by Andrew Smith and "two sides of the moon" by David Scott and Alexi Leonov (for the Russian perspective)


They went there, ****ing deal with it.

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

The list is long and it's a longer list than the paltry list against it. Several magnitudes longer.

If that's what you choose to believe Wibbs. Whatever. We've been over this. If you want to continue ad-nauseam calling me out on your ridiculous fantasies I'm not going to play ball. Not on this forum anyhow.

Chuck Stone

squod wrote: »

If that's what you choose to believe Wibbs. Whatever. We've been over this. If you want to continue ad-nauseam calling me out on your ridiculous fantasies I'm not going to play ball. Not on this forum anyhow.

I'm not sure if you're serious but if you are I have a couple of comments to make.

There is no way a conspiracy that large could be kept secret.

The Soviet Union would never have let the Americans away with beating them to the moon by pretending to get there.

squod

Why bother.......

4leto

I blame "Capricorn 1" a good film but it was fiction, fiction, fiction.

I am only on boards a while but there seems to be alot of conspiracy people here.

Omacron

I wouldn't bother even arguing this the doubters will never be convinced no matter how much evidence is presented. Its pretty sad really the single greatest technical achievement of man and some people find it easier doubt it then think about how incredible it was to achieve.

Nevermind_

There are people out there that even if NASA put them on a rocket and flew them to the damn moon and let them hit a few golf balls and bounce around a bit, they would still say it was faked.
No matter what evidence is presented, the conspiracy theory is more interesting to some people than oodles of evidence to the contrary.

Wertz

I love a good conspiracy but the moonshot isn't one of them.
Nice photos too...I love the thought that long after mankind is gone, the footprints and various landing sites will still be there...

4leto

I think what happens is conspiracy heads only study conspiracy theory and nothing else. So the only information they get is from conspiracy sites or books.

One thing I did notice in the 9/11 thread was the amount of youtube vids they put up, youtube is great for some information but books and actual documentation is more accountable.

120_Minutes

New ultra hi res picture.

hatrickpatrick

Obvious photoshop is obvious

Deus Ex Machina

Did anybody else open this thread just to see cool new pictures from the moon without any consideration for these wacko conspiracy theorists?

cyrusdvirus

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

Did anybody else open this thread just to see cool new pictures from the moon without any consideration for these wacko conspiracy theorists?

Yes, but the tin foil brigade took over fairly quickly, so i reverted to my usual poke them with a stick.

Bipolar Joe

4leto wrote: »

I think what happens is conspiracy heads only study conspiracy theory and nothing else. So the only information they get is from conspiracy sites or books.

100% this right here. My Uncle, God bless his simple self, is a big conspiracy theorist. He's sharp and has a huge memory retention, but flat out refuses to believe actual science. I talked with him about the star that exploded, made it look like there was a second sun, explained to him what the sun was, why this star looked like a second sun, and asked him to explain how and why, over the millions of years we've observed the sun, some people have managed to hide the existence of a second one. I remember a conversation I had with him a while ago, about how there's a cloning base on the dark side of the moon where they create aliens to use as slaves for the Government, which is also run by aliens or something. Turns out this is a common thought :eek: :eek: . He's smart as fuck, a very impressive man, but some of the things he believes are mind boggling.

foxyboxer

hmmm wrote: »

There's a fabulous series on Nat Geo about "NASA's greatest missions". The flights from Apollo 8 to 10 were precursors to 11 with lots of video shot, and frankly why bother if they were going to fake the landing I particularly liked how on Apollo 10, which tested the lunar lander just above the lunar surface, they deliberately short fueled the lander, just in case the pilots decided to say "f**k it, I'm going to land".

Apollo 10. The classic dress rehearsal. They had to make sure that an abort of the lunar module during powered descent would work before attempting the landing on 11. While Cernan and Young would walk on the moon subsequently, I can't even imagine how pissed Tom Stafford would have been. So close, yet so far.

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

If that's what you choose to believe Wibbs. Whatever. We've been over this. If you want to continue ad-nauseam calling me out on your ridiculous fantasies I'm not going to play ball. Not on this forum anyhow.

:pac:ridiculous fantasies? So it's less ridiculous that they came up with this conspiracy, didn't go, faked the lot with 1960's special FX, invented and patented and built 1000's of components, some of which are still in use today, sent up robots to collect the moon rocks and plant equipment and convinced 100's of 1000's of people and other often belligerent governments to keep quiet about it for the decade it was running and after? And did all that to such a convincing level that the conspiracy's "proof" is thinner than a Parisian catwalk model 4 decades on? And that's less ridiculous? Fair enough.

foxyboxer wrote: »

Apollo 10. The classic dress rehearsal. They had to make sure that an abort of the lunar module during powered descent would work before attempting the landing on 11. While Cernan and Young would walk on the moon subsequently, I can't even imagine how pissed Tom Stafford would have been. So close, yet so far.

IIRC they didn't give them enough fuel to actually land and return, in case they were tempted to try.

cyrusdvirus

Wibbs wrote: »

:pac:ridiculous fantasies? So it's less ridiculous that they came up with this conspiracy, didn't go, faked the lot with 1960's special FX, invented and patented and built 1000's of components, some of which are still in use today, sent up robots to collect the moon rocks and plant equipment and convinced 100's of 1000's of people and other often belligerent governments to keep quiet about it for the decade it was running and after? And did all that to such a convincing level that the conspiracy's "proof" is thinner than a Parisian catwalk model 4 decades on? And that's less ridiculous? Fair enough.

IIRC they didn't give them enough fuel to actually land and return, in case they were tempted to try.

Wibbs i agree with everything you said, apart from the emboldened bit.

I know that Cernan says they were short fuelled, as a "Just in case" measure, but I honestly don't think that military pilots would have had that level of indiscipline to completely go against mission orders

It did make for one of the more memorable radio calls from Lunar Orbit, though, "We is go and down among 'em Charlie" shows the level of fun that these guys were having.

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

convinced 100's of 1000's of people and other often belligerent governments to keep quiet about it for the decade

Proof?

cyrusdvirus

squod wrote: »

Proof?

Oh i dunno.... maybe the fact that it is STILL ACCEPTED CONVENTIONAL WISDOM THAT THE LANDINGS ACTUALLY HAPPENED??

That might be construed as proof.

The fact that hundreds of thousands of people, and other often belligerent governments DIDN'T EXPOSE IT AS A HOAX??

That might be proof.

The fact that all of the CT 'evidence' has ALL been disproved by people who use logical explanations.

That's proof.

alastair

squod wrote: »

Proof?

Ehh, their acknowledgement of the landings and subsequent silence in relation to tinfoil theories?

Just a guess.