Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chandrayaan Maps Apollo Missions

Posted by timothy on from the ilm-took-care-of-the-backstory dept.

maheshc writes "Chandrayaan has mapped 6 Apollo landing sites on the Moon (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17). More at the Times of India. Perhaps time to retire all the conspiracy theories ..."

7 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Please... by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps time to retire all the conspiracy theories ...

    Oh come on, you know how this is going to go. The conspiracy theorists will claim any photos are real terrain photos with CGI Apollo artifacts added. Or maybe CGI terrain photos with CGI Apollo artifacts added.

    I fully believe that there exist people whose belief in their conspiracies is so unshakeable that you could load them onto a rocket, fly their worthless ass to the moon, land them at the Apollo sites, let them see the items firsthand, and they would STILL deny that we went there 40-ish years ago.

    --
    [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    1. Re:Please... by mfnickster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Easy, they would just say you faked their entire flight.

      Either that or they'd say, "Sure, NOW we have the technology to land on the moon-- which is why you put all that stuff here last week!"

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    2. Re:Please... by Yetihehe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Conspiracy theorists don't really care about facts.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    3. Re:Please... by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But, you can be placed on a centerfuge and give a acceleration that is indeed correct, but imply you're being launched...

      You can give a _locally_Euclidean_ acceleration which is correct, but not a _non_locally_Euclidean_ acceleration which is correct (in other words, tidal forces will be very significant, especially for any centrifuge which is smaller than the entire earth. Someone simply dropping two objects separated by a meter or so can easily detect if they're in a gravity well---or in a centrifuge---or being accelerated more linearly, as to the moon).

  2. It's a waste of time trying to convince them. by wfstanle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There will be no way you can convince the conspiracy fans. This includes all of the conspiracy theories, you just can't satisfy these people. They will simply say that NASA and the Indian space agency are in cahoots and they will dismiss it.

  3. The beauty of conspiracy theories... by Geekenstein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..is that anything that doesn't fit your theory can be explained away as part of the conspiracy. The nutters will continue to be nutty.

  4. Re:"All the conspiracy theories" ? by afaik_ianal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Proof: I hate that word.

    Intellectuals don't seek proof, they seek evidence. We sought it, and we received plenty. Sure, the footage could conceivably have been faked, but the mirrors, which are still testable today, could not have been unless they were already there, or they placed them there later. There are countless other pieces of evidence, making it hard to reach any other conclusion. The only alternative hypotheses that are supported by all of the evidence are so far fetched that the question becomes a no-brainer.

    Conspiracy theorists seek proof because there is no such thing. They don't want to come to the logical conclusion, so they ignore the evidence, and require this thing you call "proof". You can't "prove" to someone that you exist (you might just be a figment of their imagination); all you can do is provide evidence, and let them decide on the strength of that evidence. If you can't prove something as obvious as your existence, then what hope do you have of proving something happened yesterday, or 40 years ago?

    Even mathematical proof is meaningless in the absence of axioms, so can we please stop using that word?