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?"

26 of 504 comments (clear)

  1. Doesn't matter by ewithrow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Doesn't matter by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I disagree, some photos of the moon lander taken from earth would be really cool IMHO.

      Even if there were no doubters I think it would be a cool thing to do.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:Doesn't matter by drunkmonk · · Score: 5, Funny

      The only way you'll ever convince these people is to take them to the moon and let them touch the stuff.

      And then leave them there, because we've got enough wackos planetside.

    3. Re:Doesn't matter by Negatyfus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Look at the moon pictures published by NASA They are so obviously fakes. USA couldn't cut is before the '60s ended, so they had to make it all up to not lose face. It's all on the internet, if you don't believe me! Besides, I think they also made up women. I mean, how many of you can claim to have even seen one?? Exactly. They just don't exist, I tell you.

    4. Re:Doesn't matter by macdaddy357 · · Score: 5, Funny

      From the article...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. Robots in 1969? These nuts need to stop smoking crack.

      --
      How ya like dat?
  2. Conspiracy Theorists... by LordOfYourPants · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Conspiracy Theorists... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I might be willing to swallow the concept of NASA doctoring photographs because the actual material from the moon was too lousy for grade-A propaganda. That might explain some of the admittedly very strange flaws in official NASA photos that people have pointed out.

      But the idea of moon landings not taking place is pretty idiotic. The US govt/NASA would have had to have been pretty stupid to fake the moon landings. After all they had to expect the Russians, or somebody else, would either go there sooner or later or send probesx to verify or just out of pure curiosity and they would look to be huge fools if no traces of landings were found.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    2. Re:Conspiracy Theorists... by Tzoq · · Score: 5, Informative

      No mystery there. You'll notice that all of the "disappearing" crosshairs go behind bright white objects. As it happens, when film is exposed the bright areas tend to "bloom" and bleed into neighbouring dark areas. So what happens when a thin black line goes through a bright white area? The bloom washes over the black line entirely and it disappears.

      --
      -- Meet the Residents -- http://www.residents.com/
  3. Hogwash by mdechene · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  4. And in other news.... by idiotnot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Spanish scientists, doubting Christopher Columbus' trip to the "new world" will use the same telescope to prove that the Earth is flat.

  5. This would at least help by cmallinson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  6. Who cares? by Beautyon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Who cares? by Bastian · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other news, Alabama has passed new legislation requiring all history textbooks to include the following disclaimer before discussing the Apollo program:

      Humans landing on the moon is just one of many equally valid theories concerning the video footage and rock samples resulting from the Apollo program. The moon landing is a controversial theory. Instructional material associated with controversy should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

      Alabama history teachers are encouraged to devote class time to discussing other theories about the Apollo mission.

  7. NASA Sues European Scientists.... by mdechene · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....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.
  8. It's a conspiracy! by tgrotvedt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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)
  9. Problems with these people... by acehole · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Problems with these people... by Mr+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      You take them to the moon and show them the lander, they say it was planted there.


      Well no shit. Isn't that what the argument is about?

      It would seem to me they would have to say, "No, we are really in Arizona" at that point. This is when you encourage them to remove their helmet.

      It's like one of those "How much do you believe" arguments to disprove alot of philosophy. Say you believe there is a chair all you want, let your mind and your body take a vote and see if your ass ends up on the floor.

  10. Re:Lies! by Guppy · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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.

  11. I don't see how this will be conclusive... by dubious9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  12. Fantastic documentary by stud9920 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  13. why so unbelievable? by hugesmile · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can't understand why people doubt the lunar landings. I mean, it's not rocket science.

  14. Re:What if... by GospelHead821 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unfortunately, I've seen disturbing evidence that some of the citizenry values the greed of corporations over the needs of the people. The other day, after reading the /. article about Nissan vs. Nissan, I told my parents about it, and they agreed that Nissan has more right to defend its name than Uzi Nissan does, because it's bigger, and that it would most appropriate for Uzi Nissan to change the name of his site or give up the URL entirely.

    --
    Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
    Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
  15. we already have proofs.. by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  16. That reminds me .... by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  17. Why it wouldn't change MY mind IF I doubted... by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?)

  18. Re:Missing the entire point... by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Everyone is missing the whole point of this discussion/event/conspiracy theory.

    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.