Slashdot Mirror
Conspiracy Theorists, Meet The Moon
Spock the Baptist writes "You can read about an article entitled: "Telescope to challenge moon doubters" in the online edition of Sydney Morning Herald. The SMH reports that, "European scientists are to use the world's newest and largest telescope to see whether the spacecraft are still on the lunar surface." Does anyone really think that this will change the alleged minds of doubters?"
Does anyone really think that this will change the alleged minds of doubters?
No, these people just want attention, they don't care if they're wrong or not.
http://almostsmart.com
instead of doubting the moon landing, they will now be convinced that it's fake.
Why else would somone try to show them otherwise?
disney!!!! And if disney said the US landed on the moon. They did... or was that andy kaufman? Or maybe the marx brothers? hmmm... - Im not sure anymore.... - Maybe we are living in some tank and the world is computer generated by machines. Like a big matrix.... uhu... who are you black people in my office..... no... dont drag me away....
- To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion -
Will see these photographs and say "Wow, those are excellent fakes."
Then there will be tons of websites that crop up showing how the images were doctored, photoshopped, impossible, etc.
Some people just can't be convinced, and I'm not sure how much tax money should be spent on such a pursuit.
All lies! Only if the government gives me a ticket to fly over to where the telescope is located and see at it for myself and allow me to check out other things in space to ensure it's not a fake. Then MAYBE I'll believe them. Until then, they're using my tax dollars for secret military projects and spending 5% of it to create these elaborate NASA lies!
If they can fake the original moon landing, then they damn well can fake pictures coming out of a telescope, too.
(No, I do not believe that nonsense.)
Had astronauts ever landed on the moon, the cheese surely would have melted when they tried to blast off. Cripes, I can't even cook cheddar in my oven, a mere 400 degrees F, without it melting and getting all smelly. How could it have stood up to rocket blasts? Riddle me that!
Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
Spanish scientists, doubting Christopher Columbus' trip to the "new world" will use the same telescope to prove that the Earth is flat.
If you think about it the conspiracy theorists are just going to say we launched these things at the moon but no one ever actually set foot, its all just some plot to make them believe... yadda yadda.
Just commercialize space travel for a low cost, and let them go see the sites for themselves.
Whoa - I can't wait for the alien upskirt videos.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
I think the majority of "moon-landing-doubters" are naive people that watched that socially irresponsible Fox TV show, and a few pictures of the landing site may be enough to sway them. There is, however, no use even talking to the true "conspiracy theorist".
An important question to ask is... how do the doubters benefit from these doubts? There is certainly a few nickels to be made.
What's funny is... these doubters must wake up everyday doubting even the most basic things. I imagine they take tests like these all day:
Without these tests... they never know what is real. They have to constantly prove (or in this case, disprove) everything.
Sex - Find It
Does anyone really think that this will change the alleged minds of doubters?
What if it shows them to be right?
Note: Although I'm beginning to see signs of conspiracy theorist (General paranoia, distrust of my own government, a sinking feeling that all my civil liberties are disappearing quickly, a belief that my government values the greed of corporations over the needs of its people, etc) in myself, I do not ascribe to the belief that the moon mission was faked.
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
assuming they even believe the private or government department that releases images of a rover or flag (!), they would simply say that that stuff was planted on later missions and that the original mission had to be faked to win the space race for the propaganda value.
That, "I want to believe" slogan/whatever is indicative of the minds and attitudes one is dealing with when dealing with people who think they are agent Mulder and that they are the only ones who realize the truth.
why run from Vincenzo?
they could verify the report in the Daily Sport that someone had spotted, on the moon, the World War II airplane in which Adolf Hitler had escaped.
At least the Daily Sport admitted that it made up the stories as it was easier than doing the investigation.
Why do people care so much about what lunar denial folk think?
Lunar deniers are an extreme minority (in both senses), they do no harm to anyone; the way astronmers obsess about proving that man went to the moon is just as insane as saying that man never went.
Honestly, people who believe man never went to the moon will change nothing. Progress will continue. New projects will be financed, launched and will return spectacular results. The manned space station is in orbit right now, if you needed any proof of this.
There will always be people like the lunar deniers.
Get over it, and ignore them.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
....over DMCA violation.
Allegedly, the European Scientists were using a new large telescope (technological means) to circumvent NASA encryption (Apparently they own that thing that if something's really freakin far away, you can't see it). Too bad the public will never know what really happened on that big orb in the night sky, so very, very far away.
Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
Is start up websites that do nothing but debunk all those UFO photos and make wild outlandish claims that it's a giant cover-up by the conspiracy therorists to mask the horrifying truth; That they have no lives.
The Internet is generally stupid
"The images from the telescope are actually made with subliminal images of the Coca Cola logo. If you turn the image upsides down, draw a square around the ship and read the horizon as a waveform you get the sound of John Lennon saying "JFK is not dead" backwards 3 times.
The "telescope" was actually a UFO that crashed on the moon and was hidden by the FBI and CIA for all these years. We have leaked documents to prove it!"
There is NO point trying to disprove conspiracy theories, that merely validates them, and gives the impression that these theories were taken seriously. Anyone can come up with a conspiracy theory about anything.
What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
You show them the moon through the telescope, they'll say the telescope has been tampered with.
You show them pictures, they say they've been doctored and are fakes.
You show them footage, they say it was staged and point out supposed inconsistancies.
You take them to the moon and show them the lander, they say it was planted there.
There is no end to it, just dont even bother.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Aaah, yes. Photographic evidence of our ability to pollute and degrade the environment even of places we don't live... Maybe the images will end up as art posters on every third student's wall...
Parent post was modded up by one of the "doubters" with "alleged minds" the submitter mentioned?
Not that I wouldn't have modded it up myself, but I would have called it Funny.
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
First, conspiracy theorists are motivated by a profound mistrust of the government. This is understandable given the vast over-extension of Federal powers that has taken place throughout the last 30 years. Intrusive Fedderal agencies like the FBi, ATF, EPA, and OSHA, among others, should have their powers curtailed. The Bush administration has made some good strides in this area, though it has clearly failed in others (e. g. the dangerous and hyterical PATRIOT act).
Second, the miserable failure of our public education system needs to be addressed. A lot of public ambivalence toward scientific breakthroughs like computers, genetic engineering, and space travel stems from ignorance. It is time to admit that our public education system as it stands is simply not getting the job done. Alternative libertarian measures such as the voucher system to allow families to send their children to private schools, and more support (tax breaks, etc) for home-schooling efforts have to be encouraged.
If proper measures are taken to root out and eliminate the social causes of conspiracy nuttiness, we will see far fewer people blindly accepting the crackpot theories of the "no-moon-landing" crowd.
I don't think there is a moon, you insensitive clod.
:)
Total geek: its 1:30AM PST in the morning and I'm on slashdot
Here's a simple solution: Stick all the doubters and nay sayers into a rocket and shoot it to the moon. Then they'll have all the proof they need (at least as long as their oxygen holds out, nobody says they need to return). Ralph Kramden was a visionary!
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Why haven't NASA used the Hubble telescope to take a picture of the flag? That might have nailed the mouth shut on the skeptics... but hey... they'd just claim it to be a faked photo to cover up the "moon landing lie".
I doubt it. Simply because the conspiracy theory isn't whether or not spaceships are on the moon but whether, to paraphrase JFK, man was sent to the moon and bought back alive (during the Apollo missions). Conspiracy theorists generally accept the existence of moon rocks and so forth because they consider it entirely plausible that unmanned spacecraft can help fulfill the various missions -- and indeed they did, for many years, before and after the Apollo missions and by several nations.
To repeat myself, the conspiracy theory hinges on whether or not it was/is impossible to send man to the moon and to bring him back alive. I should also add that I have no conspiritorial beliefs of my own on this subject.
While this may not end the conspiracy theories, detecting the Apollo lunar landers on the Moon would be a spectacular demonstration of the VLTs' superb performance. The VLT can achieve a resolution as good as the Hubble Space Telescope (and far better, once the interferometer is installed). Unfortunately, it has neither the staff nor the money of the HST public relation office, so pretty much nobody outside the scientific community knows that.
"According to Mr Allen, NASA was forced to send robots to the moon and faked the manned missions because radiation levels in space were lethal to humans."
So he thinks we had robotics capable of complex remote operation ON THE MOON in the period of 1969 - 1972? Now that's thinking optimistically...
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Finally the truth is out!. NASA Fakes Moon Landing
As they say - cogito, ergo sum. What would happen if you challenged the doubters to prove that they did in fact have minds, then started calling their evidence 'doctored'? Would they disappear in a poof of their own logic?
Hee-hee. Dying tickles!
Consider the following: the telescope can see a human hair from 16km away. A human hair is about .1mm. The moon is 384400km away from earth.
(384400km/16km)*.0001m = 2.4025m, which is to say that the telescope can see objects as small as 2.4 meters on the surface of the moon. That means the lander wouldn't be bigger than 2 pixels square.
"What's that little black dot?"
"That's the lander, duh."
"Still don't believe you"
You can never absolutely positively convince a person of the existance of a historical event. For all I know, the United States didn't even exist in 1950. Hell, I don't even believe in France, since I've never been there. I mean come on, you want me to believe that that silly French accent comes from a real language?!! Proposterous!
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Last month I saw a fantastic documentary on Arte, the French-German culture TV channel. The point of the documentary was that although the moon landing was real, Nixon had been so scared that it would fail, that he ordered to make a fake film about it. As this was decided pretty unexpectedly, they negotiated to use the London based film set for Kubrick's "2001".
They went on explaining that Kubrick as a perfectionist decided to shoot it himself, how the CIA got rid of the witnesses one by one in the seventies, and how eventually Kubrick died "unexpectedly" in 1999, just before he could make some revelations.
The whole documentary was backed with interviews with Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, and TV footage from Nixon's White House. None of these interviews were dubbed. They only cut it the right way.
As a critical person, I sat on my chair all the time thinking : "This can't be true ! That'a amazing !". The great thing is they didn't deny the moon landing at all so it made all the rest seem plausible. Then after half an hour they revealed it was all manipulation. The moon hoax theory was a hoax itself. Really a great documentary.
I can't understand why people doubt the lunar landings. I mean, it's not rocket science.
Who is alleging that these people have minds and what proof do they have! I think NASA should pay someone $15k to prove whether or not these people actually have minds.
Perhaps scientists could use cutting edge technology and the world's most powerful microscope to prove whether or not these people's minds exist.
Slashdot readers want to know!
Uhhhh, yeah, thath dithgustin. [The lady's man]
I think if you're American, you'd be nuts not to be a conspiracy theorist! Bear with me...
I'll leave Bush aside... But have you read up on your Vice President Dick Cheney (exCEO of Halliburton Industried, and oil services company with dealings with Iraq), Secretary of Commerce Don Evans (ex chairman and CEO of Tom Brown Inc, an oil and gas company), Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld (ex board member of the Tribune Company which publishes the Los Angelese Times, Chicago Tribune, NY's Channel 11), Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham (received more from the automotive industry than any other candidate, voted in 2000 to abolish the department he now leads), Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (received paid for trips abroad to promote free trade and $72,000 in campaign contributions from Philip Morris, the tobacco giant), Secretary to the Interior Gale Norton (ex national chairwoman of an "environmental group" funded by Ford Motor Company and BP Amoco, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H Card Jr (ex General Motor's chief lobbyist), National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (served on Chevron's board of directors, has an oil tanker named after her!), Secretary to the Treasury Paul O'Neill (ex. president and CEO of Alcoa - one of the biggest polluters in Texas), Shadow Adviser to the President Kenneth L. Lay (ex Head of Enron...)...
Maybe things were better in 1969. But I don't believe much your Government says these days. Especially about the "war on Iraq" not having anything to do with oil. Does that make me a crazy conspiracy theorist?
More generally, yes, there is a strong current of non-scientific and anti-scientific thought in modern US society. The right answer to that is to patiently explain scientific facts so that people can make up their own minds, and to start at whatever level people need. Science is something that doesn't have to rely on faith, it's something that reasonable people can spend time on and figure out, and make up their own mind about. And if a scientific project (be it the moon landing or some solid state physics experiment) cannot provide enough evidence for its results, well, then people are justified in doubting its validity until the evidence is forthcoming.
On the other hand, telling people that it must be true because they have seen it on TV is the wrong approach. We want people to question things they see in the mass media, because while the moon landing is not a hoax, a lot of other stuff in the mass media is completely fabricated, from television commercials for superior toothpaste to the validity of presidential elections.
What about other things they might see?
I'm pretty sure there will be a blue police box, for example...
-- Terry
It isn't an 18 meter telescope. It is actually an array of four 8-meter telescopes. With three 1.8-meter telescopes for interferometry, and a 2.5-meter auxillary telescope. All of this should provide for relatively wide-field optical imaging.
Here is a great diagram and description of the VLT
As for being able to see the lander, it should be able to see objects of about 1.3 meters in diameter.
The supporting math:
(5e-5 m) / (1.6e4 m) * (3.85e8 m) = (1.2m)
Human hair: ~5 x 10^-5 meters
Maximim Distance human hair can be seen by telescope: 1.6 x 10^4m (according to story)
Distance to moon: 3.85 x 10^7m
Sig Nazi- "No Sig for you, come back 1 year."
NASA provides funds to show...
* that the moon is not made of green cheese
* that cows cannot jump fast enough to break from Earth's garvity
* that those dark patches on the surface are not a face
* that the sun is not connected to a chariot
* that giant space goats do not eat the moon every 28 days
* that the Zodiac really does control our lives and that Capricorns should be aware of the number 67 next friday
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
You might want to read this.
"Okay, we've locked in the coordinates we have from our records on the first moon landing, now.. DEAR GOD IT'S A GIANT EYE!! AAAAAAAAA!"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
And I could only stand the drivel for around 10 minutes before I switched it to something else.
To all the doubters, let's put the issue to rest like this:
The US and USSR were competing neck and neck to get both astronauts into space and then to the moon. Like adolescent schoolboys, they took every opportunity to embarrass their opponent in the space race.
So...
When the US went to the moon, the USSR would've been watching with EVERY intelligence instrument in their posession. Every radio receiver, every telescope, every single spy would've been trained on the mission.
If the US had faked it, you can be sure that while they probably could've got away with fooling the general US public, there's absolutely NO way they could ever fool all of the scientists and analysts of the USSR doing the monitoring.
When the astronauts were transmitting from the moon, it would've been simplicity itself to check the signal source. If the signals were coming from anywhere other than the moon, the USSR would've had it in the press so fast that the ink wouldn't be dry on the page before the western media picked-up on it.
Not to mention every other country on the planet with radio antennas, telescopes, etc...
I'm sure some mental deficients would try and argue that a relay station was set up on the moon... Oh, but wait, that would require "going to the moon to set it up"... Time to just call it quits guys. How about working on conspiracy theories about aliens in area 57 instead? It'll sell better too...
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Maybe someone posted this before me, I could've missed it, anyway:
m l
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.ht
It's pretty thorough.
...Should reveal a few moon landing conspirisists to make fun of... :)
Just curious.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
http://dwemus.org/archive.php?cid=167 could have done it. It is exaclty this text. (dated 2002-09-02)
thx google.
Perhaps wecould use these robots to cut down the Radioactive Trees
I don't need to be made to look evil. I can do that on my own. - Christopher Walken
Why do people care so much about what lunar denial folk think?
This is should be insightful.
Are Chemists bothered about what Alchemists believed/said ?
Are Astronomers bothered about what Astrologers believe/say ?
Are Biologists bothered about what Creationists believe/say ?
Can you try and spot my nail clippers? I must have dropped them somewhere near the lander. Cheers, Buzz.
This month NASA tried to put an end to the controversy by commissioning a definitive account of the evidence for the landings. Days later it dropped the idea after criticism that it was wasting money by taking on the lunatic fringe: naturally, this only boosted claims that the agency was trying to hide something.
Do you think the Russians have a veneratic fringe?
from the to-stupid-for-words dept.
Why not just dust off the ol' Saturn V rockets and Apollo modules and send the conspiracy theorists to the Moon to visit the Apollo landing sites?
;-)
If the make it to the Moon, they're proven wrong. If they don't make (and die horribly in space), they're right. (Either way, we win.
If people really want to worry about govenment conspiracy they should look into the continued broadcasts of Barney The Dinosaur on TV
"When the US went to the moon, the USSR would've been watching with EVERY intelligence instrument in their posession. Every radio receiver, every telescope, every single spy would've been trained on the mission."
Your statement is pretty cool. But you're wrong in your assumptions. Conspiracy theorists may tell you that US and USSR made a whole super-conspiracy outta the Space Conquer to convince their dumb citizens that they were pretty cool. They may say that they did this in accordance, no matter the divisions and disagreements. Or they may tell you that US sent retransmitters to Space so that everyone would think they were walking on the Moon.
However these things are just corn seeds in the field The true problem here is not if we have been or not in the Moon. The problem is that we have had a huge debacle from Space Conquer since the 70s. Today, things are so histoircally far from us that we start to doubt if they really have taken place. How many expeditions have happened since then? How many events related to the Moon have happened since the last man quitted it? When the last seismic station turned off in the Moon?
The Moon Conquer was for many people something very SF, even when it was really happening. Now, 30 years later, it goes more than SF. It's mythology, sometimes of the very worst taste. Appolo XIII Holywood mega-picture showed it in all colours. We see there a raw patriotism where astronauts are good husbands and fathers and take a walk to the Moon like into the countryside. The dramatism of the film is artificial and quite theatrical. The whole story goes around on "how good is Earth, home sweet, home and dear bloody family", and doesn't touch a little neither the technicities of the mission nor the real drama of bringing back the station. The film is pure BS. And this and other similar things about Space is what we feed to new generations. That's the Cosmos they see. No wonder that they start to doubt we have been there...
Once I managed to hear something that one guy told me was a fragment from a conversation inside Appolo XIII. It was noisy, scrapped but some moments were clear. It was a cold blooded voice. It was clear that the guy was under extreme stress but he was fighting every second and every detail. No cries, no yellings, no discussions in maximas of Life and Values. Just good English full of technical details and sending Gods and Devils to Hell. That guy knew that he went into a place were frequently one gets one-way tickets. And he was really good on fighting back his return ticket. However, many people don't ever will know what was the real Appolo XIII.
If they can ever get a good enough image....
...that would make a kick ass poster.
:)
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"
This just shows that the government just flew up to the moon and planted fake space craft there!
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
As far as I remember, the crew that landed on the moon had for mission to place some highly reflective mirrors on the moon surface.
Those mirrors are used to calculate the exact distance bertween earth and the moon by using a large laser and getting a few photons back to make the calculations.
Now, except if the doubters find a way to slingshot a miror on the moon, THIS is a quite valuable poof, as they DO exist and are used everyday.
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Of a Nasa project I worked on in the 60s. It is basically a filter for telescope lenses, which adds spacecraft to any celestial bodies you point it at. I did that when I worked at a Nasa base called "Lunar Landing" out in the desert in Arizona.
I think the date was April 1st 1969
What were you doing in July 1969? I was an amateur photographer. My Uncle Joe had recently given me his black and white darkroom setup. I took pictures of the moon landing from our TV screen.
In August 1969, when the Apollo astronauts visited their hometowns, I covered Mike Collins' ticker tape parade in New Orleans for our school newspaper. I got to shake his hand! I remember thinking how small his hand was.
In the darkroom, I would enlarge negatives and print photos, and for effect, use techniques called cropping and vignetting. Cropping prints only the interesting portion of the photo. Vignetting was used if there were over or under exposed areas on the negative. I would block the light from the enlarger for a section of the photo that was overexposed, and give more light to underexposed areas (shadows). I used different paper stock which also controlled contrast.
When I saw the color moon photos in LIFE magazine I remember thinking what a great job the NASA photo darkroom staff must have done cropping and vignetting the photos.
I think its human nature to disbelieve things we can't see.
Several years ago at Cape Canaveral, Florida I had the opportunity to tour the full scale relica of the Ducan Hindes. That was the ship that Sir Francis Drake sailed around the world in. Its still hard to believe that a over 100 sailors could carry provision and make such a journey on such a small vessel.
"Yee of little faith" -- Jesus to Thomas
Dude, at least give credit where it's due. Thought I'd read that before! Googling turned up
Link 1
Link 2
Basically a copy-paste job.
One thing that might convince some doubters would be to set up another telescope nearby with plain optics and an eyepiece, then use a visible-light laser to bounce pulses off the laser ranging retroflector that Apollo 11 left behind on the surface - I have a picture of it here in a book called Eagle On The Moon (The incredible space journey of Apollo 11). Comparing it to a footprint it seems to be about 15" square, and maybe 15 yards from the lander.
t ur es/borra/hgmirror.html
You'd want to invite a half dozen well-known skeptics and let them peer through the eyepiece while they press a button to fire a laser pulse at the retroflector and wait the 2 and a bit seconds for the reflection to come back and appear in both the plain optical scope and the big electronically controlled scope with the digitally processed images. Then you'd want to be able to convince them that the two scopes are pointing at the same place, probably by taking a few photos of prominent features and matching images from the two scopes, and proving that that the features are in fact in the appropriate region of the Sea of Tranquility, as advertised.
Since there may be no other optical telescope nearby, they might want to use a tilting liquid mirror telescope, which should be cheap enough and portable enough to relocate next to the big new scope. These are under development:
http://www.casca.ca/ecass/issues/winter2000/fea
I know this will only prove the existence of a retroflective feature on the lunar surface near another feature that might or might not be the bottom half of a lunar lander, but maybe it's worth a try. If all of the lunar landers left similar retroflectors, it should be possible to account for all the Apollo missions this way, assuming they all landed on this side of the moon.
Regards, RDD
I want to live as an honest man, to get all I deserve and give all I can, to love a young woman who I don't understand.
Ofcourse the conspiracy believers will not accept any proof. They will just counter it with a stupid explanation. This is one of the characteristics of pseudoscience; they refuse to listen to anything that might spoil their own beliefs. Right now it seems to be the radiation. While I'm certainly not an expert in that field, here is a link that explains more on the topic:# radiation
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
If it is seriously intended to change anyone's mind, there needs to be a "chain of evidence" that involves the participation of the doubters.
Otherwise, it's just like a UFO photo. Someone pops up and says "Here's photographic proof! This picture of [a UFO][spacecraft on the surface of the Moon] was taken by [a Boy Scout leader][European scientists] on [precise time and date] and [experts] say it's authentic." To which I'd say "how do I really know where and how it was taken? Why couldn't this be a picture of [a garbage can lid tossed in the air and deliberately taken out of focus][a cleverly Photoshopped fake?]"
It all depends on whether you believe the [Boy Scout leader][European scientists].
No, it goes further than that. Unless you personally have INTERVIEWED the [Boy Scout leader][European scientists] it depends on whether you believe the REPORTERS...
There are things you know because you've seen them yourself, and there are things you know because you are told them by people you trust. There has to be a chain of trust. If the don't invite representatives of the doubters to eyewitness the procedures used, the final photograph doesn't mean a thing.
One of the aspects of scientific research that deserves to be taught better in the schools involves, not the use of the scientific method, but of the role played by citation and attribution and, in general, scholarship. That's the big difference between a journal article and an article in the popular press.
EVERY statement in the scientific literature can, in principle, be traced back to a specific person with a name and institutional affiliation (which constitutes a usable address), who says "This is what I did and this is what I saw." And you can ask them about it if you doubt it.
It will be very cool to see the pictures when they get them. But unless the doubters are closely involved in the process, there's no reason why it should change their minds.
(Actually, it will be even cooler if they CAN'T get them--which I think is quite possible, the Moon is a big place and the spacecraft are awfully small. Let's say it turns out that they can't. What do you think they will do?)
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Conspiracy Theorists, Meet The Moon
Its about time we send those bastards to the Moon so they can leave us good folk alone!
As Jackie Gleson once said, "To the Moon Alice!!!"
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
The story came from the heart...but my stomach got in the way.
...what's your point?
When Gallileo ffirst started using the telescope, most people thought that what he was seeing through them was some sort of optical illusion, like a funhouse mirror. No doubt conspiracy theorists will latcch on to that "Its only an optical illusion caused by natural processes on the moons surface" If somone doesnt want to believe something, no amount of factual evidence is satisfactory. Even if you shot somone to the moons surface, they would still say "well im only in some nasa sound stage" or "this is some sort of hypnotically induced suggestion" People have an amazing capacity to believe things in spite of overwhelming evidence to the opposite, or lack of evidence whatsoever, despite the extremity of implausibility (see scientology)
I've been under the impression for the last several years that its not even possible to view such a small angular size from the surface of Earth because of the air density and subsequent distortion. Even with adaptive optics I'll bet that if they photograph the landing site, the lander will be a blurry blob.
Theoretically they could use Hubble to view it. The Hubble can resolve the width of a dime from 50 miles, but if you point it at the surface of the Earth or Moon, it'll burn out the CCD chip.
Someone grown up in todays medialandscape just *knows* that about anything can be faked. Strange enough they believe in the faintest hint of something conspirational going on.
:(.
I had yesterday a chat with a person doubting that planes did really fly into the wtc towers! Obviously there is even a book out in the wild now supporting this theory. O.k., so these people in theire hope for a conspiracy will believe the videos (realeased minutes after the crash) are fakes. They do believe no one on the street realised that there were no planes (that's what the book seems to tell). I guess everyone checking afterwards how the buildings crashed was obviously paid by some secret Agency. It's a relative new conspiracy and so u will for sure see it growing in the next months
But the same person had no problem believing the strange facts which were presented in the book (a 5 min. google lookup would've been enough to find out the faults of the book).
Guess now if i was able to change his opinion...
About the moon: Send those idiots to the moon and show them the landing side. They will come back and tell, that they have been abducted by aliens, been put in a Matrix-like Virtual Reality with a fake moonlanding side and start wearing tin-foil-hats.
Those that will believe nothing.
Those that will believe anything.
Skeptics and the suckers. Jaded and the gullible. Those who refuse to be fooled, and those who will buy anything, no matter how outrageous. I get them on my site all the time. A small group of people, despite the modern technology necessary to even access my website, refuse to believe its possible to control appliances via the computer. And then there are those who try to talk to a slideshow. You can't win.
No matter what you do, no matter how much proof is available, there will always be idiots that believe the moon landings were faked. I call them idiots because their "proof" is based on scientific evidence that is actually proof against them, false implications, or outright lies. And for the most part, they fail to listen to any reason. They're not looking for a debate, they're looking to impose their view on the world, and refuse to accept that others would actually believe that the obvious happened. There are actually people in this world that still believe the Earth is flat. You can try to convince these people, but you're wasting your breath. Just let them enjoy their ignorance. It IS bliss afterall.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Alabama also thinks that the ten comandments should be in a court of law.
No, one jackass justice (who was elected by a majority, but not an overwhelming majority). A lot of retards live here, but there are also quite a few intelligent, thinking human beings in the state. You might keep in mind that Marshall Space Flight Center is located in Huntsville, AL, and I doubt you'll find many Apollo deniers there.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Alabama requires stickers containing text very similar to the disclaimer I put in that parody to be put in every science textbook. Something about evolution being one of several equally valid theories.
You dolt, the shots would come from Earth. They'd be downblouse shots.
Fool.
Virg
This wouldn't work. Not only would the local atmospheric disturbance make it impossible to focus on the landing site, but there was evidence that the lower modules were destroyed during take-off. The entire landing sites are now buried in dust, leaving no trace of the landings.
Besides that, the article clearly states that all conspiracy theorists believe that robots were sent instead, because humans could never withstand the radiation and intense vacuum of space. Even if a telescope could be trained on some pile of trash and junk on the moon, it would still be impossible to prove that it was the result of human activity.
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
I think if you're American, you'd be nuts not to be a conspiracy theorist! Bear with me...
I'll leave Bush aside... But have you read up on your [list of executive branch officials and their connections to oil, auto, and Texas industrial interests deleted]
Look:
Bush was the president of an OIL company in an oil-producing state, and a governor of that state.
Now he's president of the United States. As such his primary job is to quickly select a team of people to staff the upper levels of the executive branch and carry out his policies. That means very talented executives that he already KNOWS and trusts to faithfully make decisions the same way he would.
Where the HELL do you expect him to FIND such people, in quantity, in a short time, EXCEPT the industry and state he's been working in for years?
Think about it: What line of work are YOU in? If YOU had to pick several dozen executives whose work YOU know and whose decisions YOU trust, what line of work would THEY be in?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It'll comfort you to know that sighting the Moon landing sites is being done as a resolution test, not to disprove conspiracy theorists.
Virg
Everyone is missing the whole point of this discussion/event/conspiracy theory.
...Says who?
By majority of comments posted here are merely to malign or otherwise insult the people who think the event was faked. I begin to wonder if anyone here even HAS an open mind anymore, or if they've all turned to mindless sheep (obligatory Dilbert reference). Why would you accept something as rote simply because your self-biased government said so? I personally think a healthy dose of skepticism is needed today. It always strikes me as funny how so many people subscribe fully to the moon landing, then turn around and refuse to believe that the Bible is God's Word (or something else that is based wholly on belief).
I think it goes hand-in-hand with university level education today. Today's system teaches vocational trades. It no longer teaches people how to think for themselves. Did you know that all doctorates used to be in Philosophy or the art of thinking clearly? It is still called a PhD to this day. Hence, very few people know how to think logically. I am not saying that I know how to think properly either, but at least I know the problem is there.
Do you think it's beyond our government to deceive you? Do you think the goverment has nothing to hide? The point of this post, this discussion, this conspiracy theory, is to get you to logically and scientifically deduce the truth from the chaff. It is an exercise in skepticism. Don't get angry that someone debates your postion and resort to name-calling, defend it. Debate is a wonderfull tool for being able to see an issue from all sides, sharpening your mind, and learning something you didn't fully understand before. I am merely asking that you accept the possibilities, and not damn them because they are not what you believe.
- OrbNobz
Question Authority!
That's a lie! everyone knows when you are exposed to the space radiation you do not die! Instead you're likely to experience one (maybe more) of the following:
--
Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
You have to hand it to the conspiracy theorists -- there is a weird phenomenon needing explanation here and it is weird enough to justify bold conjecture.
Seastead this.
Not that I believe it, but I wouldn't mind knowing the history behind the video at MoonTruth.Com...
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"
This is a famous troll piece from forever ago, often echoed on Adequacy (when it was around) and also shown on kuro5hin a lot.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Uh oh.
The gig is up.
Better sell my NASA stock and head on down to mexico.
"It's not about morality and no one ever claimed it was."
OH silly me. So when Bush says "evil", he is using the ALTERNATE definition of "not currently aligned with our short term geopolitical interests."
"Get over it"
Thank you for your comforting words, my ire is already fading!
I didn't understand why NASA dropped the book idea. They said it would cost $15,000. Isn't this a paltry sum as far as books go? Gosh, they might have made millions on the thing, but certainly they could have covered the cost of making it.
In this age of the government cutting funding for NASA, this book could have been a great boon.
Maybe I'm missing something. Were they planning to give away the book for free?
WWJD? JWRTFA!
When spy satelites first claimed (with 1m resolution) that they could see individual cars, the cars appeared as a single pixel. The only reason you could tell they were car was you could discern the lines of streets around them. When they got better, they stopped talking about cars because you then saw little spots that turned out to be people.
They didn't say they could identify a hair at 16km, they said they could see it. If you were catagorizing your telescope, wouldn't you want to say what the smallest thing you could see was? Doesn't something smaller sound more impressive? If a human hair took up a hundred pixels at 16km, wouldn't rather say you could still see it at 17km or 18km? Come on now.
Usually when one makes a statement like that it means that if the object were any smaller, you couldn't see it at all. Now it might be a little bigger than one pixel because scientists like to compare thing to the human hair. I doubt it would show up to be more than a handfull of pixels, prosibly ten to twenty square at best (maybe a little longer on one side for the shadow. It would be enough to ID for you and me, but for the conspiracry people, its just a few tens of pixels.
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
But what about those cross-hairs?
You mean the ones centered on your forehead?
Honestly, its a little sad that NASA cant put up a single decent microsite to refute every claim (like the one about the suits not being sufficient to stop radiation) but, they are busy guys...
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
This will not be proof that NASA went to the moon. Photographic evidence isn't proof anymore. Anything can be faked. Otherwise, we'd have to believe that Burt did, in fact, meet with Osama bin Laden.
The irrefrickinfutable evidence of the moon landings is the rock samples. They don't have evidence of re-entry, so they aren't meteorites. Chemically, these things just didn't come from earth. They don't have enough water in them. Everything on earth, no matter how dry an environment it comes from, contains a fair amount of water. Even the rocks of the Antarctic Dry Valleys, where there's been no precipitation have some water in hydrated compounds in the rocks. Same for deep-crustal and even mantle rocks brought to the surface by vulcanism.
Fact is, the moon rocks may or may not have come from the moon, but they sure as hell came from somewhere and they didn't enter the earth's atmosphere on their own.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
To get detail images of the moon landers, you have to use interferometry.
Your telescope's aperture limits the resolution of the image. Since it's no where practical to build 100m mirrors, you have to use interferometry. That means bundling several beams into one, like they do with the VLT telescope on Mt. Paranal.
With radio telescopes you can use recordings of the signals, taken thousands of miles apart, using atomic clocks for synchronizing the recordings.
If you were to send radar pulses onto the moon surfaces and watched the returned signal with several radio telescopes all around the world, I am pretty sure that you could recognize the shape of the moon lander descent stage on the moon's surface. Possibly even the rover and the other equipment they left behind.
But who would want to fund such a huge thing, especially considering that scientists don't usually doubt that there has been a moon landing.
--- Eat my sig.
I can't remember which book it was, but Arthur C Clarke predicted that we would send a magnesium flare to the moon before any other missions, so that people could see it from Earth when they blew it up. How about that? How big would it have to be?
All things in moderation; including moderation
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What if the telescope shows no vehicles? Will this change the minds of the "believers"?
Before some excitable person starts attacking me, I haven't read the arguments of the "doubters" and I'm not especially doubtful of the moon landing. It's just interesting that it's such an article of faith. Generally, I'm more inclined to doubt than to faith.
Forget the Conspiracy Theorists, even as a kid I always though it would be cool to be able to see the remains of our moon landings from Earth. I mean the rings of Saturn are neat, but being able to be reminded in a real way that humans have gone to the moon is very cool.
I mean really what happens in the future when the average Joe can go down to Target and pick up a high powered telescope. The Conspiracy Theorists will say, no that's not from 1969, NASA just put it on the moon to cover their asses.
I doubt that the moon landings actually occurred. However, I am not a nut.
Actually, upon closely inspection, you are.
For example, if the space suits that nasa had in the 60s were good enough to allow a person to pass through the van allen belt, then why are they not good enough to allow someone to don one and clean up Three Mile Island?
A) The Van Allen belts are not so dangerous as the conspiracists want you to believe.
B) While travelling through the belts, the astronauts had the added benefit of being INSIDE A SPACECRAFT.
C) Three Mile Island was cleaned up years ago.
What I don't get is how everyone here is so quick to dismiss any person who doubts the government as a nut.
We don't. We dismiss people who continue to doubt the moon landings in spite of all evidence and logic.
Yes. And they were watching every move we made and no doubt were tracking the spacecraft and were probably listening in on the communications...
even taking them to to moon to see the site themselves would result in claims of planting the "props" there before they got there.
"These are just PROPS! It's impossible to go to the moon, I say! *beep*"
"Oh, wait a minute... *beep*"
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
If you want to brag, you sell the smallest RECOGNIZABLE object at the greatest distance. Not a pixel that could be anything.
.000122m which is slightly larger than the width of the average human hair.
.0001m apart from 16km away. Therefore if it can not discern two separate points, the best it can see is one point and thus one human hair would roughly be equivalent to one pixel. Look it up.
I disagree with you there. Scientistis like absolutes. At what distance you can recognize sometime is increadable grey. But enough logic for you, here's some math. Light interferes with itself. This has an interesting effect. After a certain distance observing under a certain wavelength it become impossible to distinguish two separate points.
This is neatly summed up in Rayleigh's criterion for resolvability:
theta(in radians) = 1.22 lamba/(diameter of lens).
The combined light gathering strength for the Very Large Telescope comes out to be equivalent to a 16m mirror. It can also discern wavelengths well into ultraviolet range, so lets give em 100nm. SO 1.22*(100*10^-9)/16 = 7.625*10^-9 radians. Now imagine an isocoles (sp?) triangle with that angle at the top. The base would be the length of the smallest discernable object. Say it was 16000m from the top of the triangle to the bottom, how can we figure the base? Divide angle by two and make a right triangle making a known edge of length 16000m. tan(theta)= opp/adj => tan(3.8125*10^-9)*16000m = 6.1*10^-5, but wait we have to multiply by two to get our original base back =
Thus according to physics a telescope with apparent 16m lens and ability to measure ultraviolet wavelength at 100nm can not distinguish between two points less then
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
At least, that's one theory that's been tossed around. Apparantly there was a Sura (I'm not sure which one) about "Splitting the Moon" or some such End Times omen. Thus, a lot of conservative Muslims want dearly to prove the the moon landings never happened.
There was a clever French/German parody of lunar deniers recently, which "claimed" that Stanley Kubrik engineered the fake scenes, and that Nixon had the conspirators (camera crew and actors) liquidated. The nasty part was that the show kept its facade going until after the final credits rolled, then finally admitting that they had quoted out of context and did a lot of Photoshopping.
At the end of the show, the narrator then claimed that Al Qaeda was actively claiming that the Apollo mission was a "Zionist lie".
Still believe that all lunar deniers are harmless? But please, find out for yourself if I'm right or not; don't just take my word for it...