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.
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.
The U.S. government... lie? nooo...
023AD01("Child", "Evil");
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".
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.
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!
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!
In the very long run, this gives some hope for an almost pristine Earth, with all the benifits of industry.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
"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.
Hey, you've got my support. To cut down on costs, though, I'm going to vote for the one-way ticket option.
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.
Its been said before, I will say it again, Hubble does not have the resolution to take those sorts of pictures. Also the moon reflects so much light that it would dazzle hubbles collectors anyway. IIRC Nasa did release a rather grainy shot of one of the Apollo landing units still on the moon.
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.
> I mean what kind of costs go into taking a shot of the moon when we dont really *need* to? Sad to see equipment being *wasted* on this kind of thing.
Some feel that way about going to the moon in the first place, and that cost orders of magnitude more money.
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?
h'm, it's supposed to be the apollo 15 landing site but to my untrained eyes it looks suspiciously like dark splotches. anyone know of any better ones out there? maybe some moon rocks or golf balls all lined up to spell HELP or something?
---
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
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.
http://dwemus.org/archive.php?cid=167 could have done it. It is exaclty this text. (dated 2002-09-02)
thx google.
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.
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
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!
The story came from the heart...but my stomach got in the way.
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)
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
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.
No, we're not.
By majority of comments posted here are merely to malign or otherwise insult the people who think the event was faked.
That's because you have to be a bloody fool to believe they were faked. Thousands of people were involved in the Apollo landings. You simply cannot maintain a conspiracy with that many peoiple involved. You can stop the debate right there.
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).
What's the old saying? Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out?
Why would you accept something as rote simply because your self-biased government said so?
This is a strawman fallacy. You assume we haven't analyzed the claims of the hoaxpushers. You assume we have not visited places like www.clavius.org and gotten informed. You should not make such foolish assumptions.
I personally think a healthy dose of skepticism is needed today.
You used the key word yourself: HEALTHY. Believing that the moon landings were some sort of vast and impossible conspiracy is not healthy- it's mental degeneration, and quite often bred from extreme anti-governmental ideology.
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).
Good gravy! Where to even begin deconstructing THIS logical fallacy! For one thing, you are assuming the hoax debunkers are in the same set as the Bible thumpers. In my experience these are close to being mutally exclusive sets.
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.
And now were in the Standard Diatribe Against Society zone so common to ideological rants. Wake me when it's over.
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.
Zzzzzzzz...
I am not saying that I know how to think properly either, but at least I know the problem is there.
No, the problem is that people like hoaxfollowers cannot think in terms of discrete events. To them, the government is not to be trusted. Period. They cannot see that the moon landings happened AND still distrust the government on other things. Ideologues like them can rarely even perceive the passage of time. The government is doing dishonest things now, so all government actions throughout history must be the same. It's like Muslims hating modern day Christians for the Crusades. There's no perception of distictness between different points in time. It's all one hazy amorphous mass.
Do you think it's beyond our government to deceive you? Do you think the goverment has nothing to hide?
Another strawman. No, of course not, but claiming the the moon landings happened is not the same as giving the government a pass on all things. It's called analyzing an event based on the relevant evidence, and avoiding the generalized ideological appraoch such as "the gummint done lies sometimes, so they done lied about the moon landings."
The point of this post, this discussion, this conspiracy theory, is to get you to logically and scientifically deduce the truth from the chaff.
Yes, and eventually you reach a point where the truth lies revealed. *You* have to accept that many of us have reached that point.
It is an exercise in skepticism.
So exercise some skepticism in the other direction and admit the hoaxpushers are just trying to sell books and videos, and their foloowers are ignorant. Occam's Razor alone gets you this one.
Don't get angry that someone debates your postion and resort to name-calling, defend it.
It's not anger- it's frustration that people could believe such nonsense, especially people on Slashdot who have access to all the information on the Internet at their fingertips.
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.
You miss the crucial point, though. Many of us have already learned the facts, and arrived at the conclusion that the landings happened. The facts are there, and the claims of the hoaxpushers lie in tattered ruins.
I am merely asking that you accept the possibilities, and not damn them because they are not what you believe.
We damn them because they refuse to accept readily available facts. It's not about belief. This isn't religion. There is no faith in the government. There is, however, solid and endless evidence and epirically proven aspects about how humanity works that makes the vast conspiracy theory (and vast conspiracies in genral) completely unworkable.
--- Ban humanity.
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;}