The most sensible page on the Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy can be found here:
http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm
Sixteen of them I believe, including the ones on the afterburners.
Serious question though – if only out of curiosity not conspiracy. As I understand it not even the most powerful scopes around are capable on focusing on any of those flags (distance and size issues, not hard to grasp), but isn’t there a possibility of launching some sort of unmanned drove that can get close enough to do just that? IOW, not unlike the Mars prove/s (?) which can take tight close-ups of most anything out there.
I mean beyond putting all this nonsense to bed, wouldn’t there be additional benefits to doing so? Or do we know all we need to know about the moon?
I’m totally convinced…great cite! I never really believed in the moon hoax theory, but after seeing some of the photos and the cogent analysis of them I have to say that I’ve had a change of heart! Thanks muchly…
-XT
I’m not sure what the point would be to photograph some of the stuff still left up there (I assume this is what you are getting at). However, one of the things that was left on the moon is a laser reflector (it’s used to get accurate measurements of the distance between the moon and Earth IIRC), and that is still working perfectly. If any ‘proof’ was needed that would be it as it’s pretty well documented that they set the thing up…and that it’s still in use.
I think there is still plenty to learn about the moon (like if there is ice in some of the craters), and I think there are still unmanned missions to explore them. IIRC the Euros or maybe the Japanese recently did an unmanned mission to the moon, and China and the US are both planning further unmanned missions. The US of course is currently planning an actual manned mission back to the moon…though I’m not holding my breath for that one.
-XT
To physics, being on the moon is no different from being on the sun or any planet in any solar system anywhere. Do you have any knowledge that the laws of physics as we know them operate differently anywhere else? (No, just because something doesn’t “look right” to you doesn’t mean Newton, Einstein et al were wrong.)
The laws of physics don’t tell us that a dust cloud on Earth looks just like a dust cloud on the Moon, but if you take into account all factors, both dust clouds are identical. The principal differences are gravity and atmosphere. Them’s some pretty big diffs, Son, but they follow the same rules there as here.
And for anyone who says there isn’t enough dust on the landing pads, I offer these possible explanations:[ul][li]How much dust can you see? Are you seeing accurately? Can you measure it and quantify it?[]How much dust do you expect? Based on what calculations? Within what range?[]Is there any possibility that the camera angle, harsh lighting, film characteristics and reflections distort the image? If so, how much distortion is there? Could it account for what you want to see, but can’t?[/ul]If you can definitely discard all these considerations and can think of no more, then maybe we can talk about what it means. Until then, man went to the moon, you betcha.[/li]
Aside: Good choice of moniker.
It still wouldn’t convince the CT bunch. They would just say that the probe mission was a hoax too.
Nothing can ever convince them.
Well both actually. Not that I think for a minute it’s worth spending all that money in debunking a bunch of loonies, but rather that it would be a side effect of such a project.
As a long time disciple of Sagan I think we owe it to ourselves to explore the Universe. But what I don’t quite get is, as you’ve said so yourself, if we haven’t yet finished exploring the Moon and whatever possibilities it holds (or not. we simply don’t know for sure do we?) why place so many resources in exploring Mars? STM the allocation of resources for these endeavors should be based on solid science and not upsmanship.
Seriously, though I very much doubt I’ll see the day when the Moon appears as an option to Nuclear Holocaust, it is – or at least for as long as science tells us not – the closest scape route for those who can make it.
Thoughts?
Screw them if that’s the case – I just mentioned that as a peripheral ‘benefit’ but hardly as goal per se. See my latter post for my reasoning.
That’s because the moon landing was, essentially, an engineering challange. Its purpose was not so much to explore the moon but to build, and test, a spacecraft capable of landing a human on the moon and returning. By that logic, a Mars mission makes perfect sense.
In my opinion, the purpose of the space program is not to explore space but to improve humanity’s spacefaring capabilities. Engineering, not science (although the “engineering” also includes such sciences as physics, chemistry, rocketry anmd materials science). In the event of you Nuclear Holocaust, don’t you want us to have some decent spaceships?
If you really want to convert the CT crowd just show them this 100% authentic educational film about the “Real” moon landing.
Sure. Although, unless NASA had a specific reason (such as observing how things - including the manmade things - had changed in the last forty years), they’d be pretty unlikely to choose a landing site within striking distance of one of the previous missions anyway.
No. Dust in an airless environement behaves in a decidedly different manner than the dust we’re used to seeing. It settles out immediately, subject only to the local acceleration due to gravity. There are no clouds of billowing dust on the moon, ever, no matter how much of it you kick up.
Pardon the leap of logic if that’s what I am incurring in, but has NASA conclusively determined the Moon as being inhabitable for humans?
When NASA does go back to the moon, they should tell everyone that they’re really just acting out a practice lunar landing, produced on a sound stage somewhere. Pretty soon people will be coming out of the woodwork to unmask the conspiracy, combing the footage for proof that it was actually taken on the moon. Then the conspiracy buffs will be happy, and NASA gets credit where credit’s due: it’s a win-win situation.
I wasn’t implying that people had been living there since the original missions, only that the stuff they left behind may have undergone interesting changes through exposure to radiation, vacuum, dust, micrometeorites, etc.
Thanks (and also to whoever first linked to the trailer). Crazy stuff. I took the opportunity to correct the reference to the “dark side” of the Moon in the Wiki entry.
Voyager writes:
> I saw Apollo XVII take off.
Hey, I was there too. Remember me? 4’11", red hair, glasses? I was in the parking lot of the Holiday Inn just across the Indian River from the launch. I don’t remember you though. I guess you’ve changed a lot since then.
Incidentally, have you guys gotten your paycheck this week from NASA? I quit my job as a brain surgeon to take this job working for NASA as a flunkey pretending to be objective on a message board while actually I’m their shill. They promised me I’d be making much more than I did as a doctor. Where’s my paycheck this week?
Lucky bastard. The only nighttime launch of the greatest rocket ever built.
Not to mention the effects of the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
“Where is the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!”