LRO to image Apollo landing sites

[Trinoc]

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8107197.stm), just launched, will have enough camera resolution to take pictures of the stuff left behind by the Apollo landings.

So, before it gets there, it's time for all of us to come up with predictions of what the lunar hoax brigade will come up with to explain them away.

Over to you ...

[Croydon Bob]

So, before it gets there, it's time for all of us to come up with predictions of what the lunar hoax brigade will come up with to explain them away.

The loonies are way ahead of you. Here's a Torygraph article from 2002:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1414144/Worlds-biggest-telescope-to-prove-Americans-really-walked-on-Moon.html

Which quotes Marcus Allen, the UK publisher/editor of the anti-semitic new-age magazine Nexus:

"I would be the first to accept what they find as powerful evidence that something was placed on the Moon by man."
He added, however, that photographs of the lander would not prove that America put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem - the Russians did that in 1959," said Mr Allen. "The big problem is getting people there."
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. "We know that no lead shielding was carried on Apollo, so how were 27 astronauts able to survive a journey of several days to and from the Moon?"

[skbuncks]

Any images taken by the LRO which provide evidence for man going to the moon will obviously have been faked using the same advanced 3d holography techniques used to simulate planes crashing into the World Trade Centre on 911.:cheesy:

Infact any such images will provide direct proof that 911 was a false flag operation perpetrated by the Illuminati in furtherance of their plans to bring about a New World Order.

skb

ETA: LRO - Lizard Ruler Overlords.

[Trinoc]

ETA: LRO - Lizard Ruler Overlords.
I, for one, welcome our new ... oh, never mind!

[lost thought]

You knew it would not work. >:-)
The conspiracy theorist will only include the Japanese LRO in the conspiracy and that all the pictures and video have all been faked. Nothing short of taking the nuts to the lunar surface and dumping them at the site of the Apollo eagle landing would work, perhaps maybe not. No evidence would suffice. >:D

[Croydon Bob]

Nothing short of taking the nuts to the lunar surface and dumping them at the site of the Apollo eagle landing would work, perhaps maybe not.

Oh yes! You ZOG reptiloids would love to send them all into space where they would die instantly from the Deadly Cosmic Rays (or possibly some of them would turn into superheroes). What easier way to kill the people who know The Truth than to send them all up in $billion rockets to their certain death?

[lost thought]

I don’t think I was very clear about my suggestion that the conspiracy nuts would accuse the Japanese of being in with the Americans LRO coverage of the Apollo site. The Japanese probe has taken some very good high definition photographs of the Lunar surface before becoming the controlled crashing so it would be a short skip and a jump for them to propose that the Americans told them not to photograph anywhere near the Apollo Eagle site. O0

Croydon Bob …………….. Super Giant Catapults… Much cheaper nicker elastic. :cheesy:

[skbuncks]

You knew it would not work. >:-)
The conspiracy theorist will only include the Japanese LRO in the conspiracy and that all the pictures and video have all been faked. Nothing short of taking the nuts to the lunar surface and dumping them at the site of the Apollo eagle landing would work, perhaps maybe not. No evidence would suffice. >:D

I fear that for some of them not even this would suffice. It is quite sad really that some people can be so disillusioned from reality

skb

[Tony Williams]

Nothing short of taking the nuts to the lunar surface and dumping them at the site of the Apollo eagle landing would work, perhaps maybe not.
Of course it would: it would immediately silence them.:wavey:

Oh, you mean you'd give them spacesuits?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Oh, you mean you'd give them spacesuits?

Cruel but fair. ;D

[skbuncks]

Of course it would: it would immediately silence them.:wavey:

Oh, you mean you'd give them spacesuits?

No, it wouldn't. On the priviso that we gave them space suites, immediately upon their return to Earth they would claim that their cool aid had been spiked with advance hallucinogens :cheesy:.


skb

[expat-USA]

as far as the question of our astronauts landing on the moon in the way they have claimed...
i have examined the question and i have reached my own tentative conclusion. i believe you all would do well to actually take on real skeptiscism about anything you accept as true. an unexamined truth is a dogma.
is that a false statement?
as a real skeptic we should begin with skeptiscism about all things which we currently believe. i find that, upon examination, that what we believe we have never actually examined in a fair way. by fair i mean "without a personal interest in gain."
this - i believe if we are fair - must be a rather difficult and perhaps impossible task. so i must admit i cannot consider myself fair any more than you.
however, i can point out pieces of information and let us go on from there.
for me, i find my tentative belief in regards to apollo 11 to be most succintly and briefly expressed in the apollo 11 press conference.
this is still viewable on the web. perhaps you could take the time to watch it closely. the fascinating thing about video now is one can watch it over and over and even download it and go frame by frame.
best.

[Tony Williams]

as far as the question of our astronauts landing on the moon in the way they have claimed....
Now that phrase is a real giveaway - it implies that the only evidence in support of an actual moon landing is the testimony of the astronauts who went there!

How about that of the thousands of people working at NASA throughout, plus the signals from the spacecraft on its journey and from the moon which were tracked in various countries (some of which would have been delighted to embarrass the USA by revealing a hoax).


as a real skeptic we should begin with skeptiscism about all things which we currently believe
Skepticism is even more productively applied to daft notions which don't stand up for a moment.

[Croydon Bob]

as a real skeptic

From the confused ramblings you have posted so far you seem to be a "real skeptic" in the same way that a fish is a real helicopter.


we should begin with skeptiscism about all things which we currently believe.

You've a long way to go to reach skepticism. I try not to "believe" anything. I have opinions based on evidence and probability.

Of course the moon landings could have been faked, but it would, as Tony has suggested, be a massive conspiracy involving thousands of NASA employees, none of whom have ever spoken up, plus the USSR, China, UK, etc. What would be the point? What would be the point of pretending that men can travel in space if they can't? Why would the soviets have collaborated? How come they haven't leaked the truth since, etc, etc.

I think that you are one of the many loonies who confuses having an open mind with having an empty mind.

[expat-USA]

[QUOTE=Croydon Bob;78714]From the confused ramblings you have posted so far you seem to be a "real skeptic" in the same way that a fish is a real helicopter.


what is a skeptic. what is the methodology of a skeptic?

[Croydon Bob]

what is a skeptic. what is the methodology of a skeptic?

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/skepticism.php

O0

[expat-USA]

is the world flat or round? how would we know? history tells us we cannot depend on the mass beliefs of the time.
the same with these other issues.
now, was there a massive conspiracy to make people think the world was flat in the past?
please answer this and explain the difference today. you can be brief.

i did go to the link on skeptiscim. it is not succinct so i can not address all points. here is just one quote


For many reasons, people will accept claims at face value. The claims may agree with their other beliefs and so are deemed acceptable, they may have heard a claim repeated so often that they assume it must be true (e.g. we only use 10% of our brains) or it may be something they would like to be true; that fits in with their world-view or that of their social group.

This approach has the major disadvantage that claims and beliefs are not scrutinised and could well be false.

[expat-USA]

next quote from skeptics description:

Denial.

This approach is where a claim is dismissed without consideration because it does not fit in with a person's current understanding, belief system or world-view. No thought or scrutiny needs to be used; if the claim is not deemed acceptable for any reason, it is denied. The disadvantage to this approach is that if a claim were to be true, it would not be recognised as such.

[ZERO]

now, was there a massive conspiracy to make people think the world was flat in the past?No. People did not conspire with one another to convince others the world was flat.

please answer this and explain the difference today. you can be brief.Today there is still no conspiracy to convince others the world is flat.
Of course both in the past and today this does not stop some from believing the world is flat. In the past and today those who look at the evidence with an open mind come to the conclusion that the world is spherical.

[expat-USA]

No. People did not conspire with one another to convince others the world was flat.
Today there is still no conspiracy to convince others the world is flat.
Of course both in the past and today this does not stop some from believing the world is flat. In the past and today those who look at the evidence with an open mind come to the conclusion that the world is spherical.


ok, so it is possible to have a widely held belief - even almost universal- that can change later?

when you say "those who look at the evidence with an open mind"

how would you characterize this open mind? how does it proceed to make judgements? and more so, could this mind change it´s belief given new facts or evidence? please don´t think i am arguing a specific idea here, i am trying to have a decent conversatiion that we may both find ok and not upsetting.

neither am i trying to waste time. i accept and desire brief descriptions.
you may find my questions annoying, but i am being honest.

but i do warn you, if we go forward you may find i am questioning everything. that becomes very very annoying. the only way to go into this is to leave out specific ideas we may contest. we are discussing, "what is reality and how do we know it." this is an extremely annoying and difficult topic to enter.

[ZERO]

when you say "those who look at the evidence with an open mind"

how would you characterize this open mind? how does it proceed to make judgements? and more so, could this mind change it´s belief given new facts or evidence?

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_open_mind.php

[expat-USA]

"An open-minded person is someone who is willing to consider ideas, opinions and arguments purely on their merit. If an idea can be shown to be correct then an open-minded person will alter, or add to, their world-view with this new-found knowledge. If the new idea does not stand up to scrutiny however, it will be rejected."

ok, since we will not discuss succinctly and specifically, but you point me to a general page, i cannot go point by point. so, using the above quote, are you willing to look at anything related to the asserted moon landing. i say asserted because an open minded person takes nothing for granted, but makes guesses based on the balance of evidence they have available.

so, the moon landing was real. everyone knows that - except......
as the argument seems to go... "nutters, fruitcakes, idiots, fantasists etc etc.

we can agree this argument is not valid because it is a tautology.
ANYONE who questions the official story is automatically one of the above.

so, if you agree with the above, than no question or investigation is posssible. if not, we can do a few basic things. the alledged moon landing is not my area of expertice, but that is maybe good as my opinion is not so fully formed.

are you ready for an open discussion without name-calling and without pre-ordained assumptions?

[Tony Williams]

so, the moon landing was real. everyone knows that - except......
as the argument seems to go... "nutters, fruitcakes, idiots, fantasists etc etc.

we can agree this argument is not valid because it is a tautology.
ANYONE who questions the official story is automatically one of the above.
You have not addressed the points raised by two of us: that if the moon landings were faked, thousands of people in NASA must have been involved in the conspiracy (and have kept silent ever since), plus the governments of many countries who tracked the transmissions, including the USSR which would have been delighted to expose a fraud. This is so improbable that any argument in favour of such a conspiracy would have to produce equally strong evidence before it could be taken seriously.

So, point us to solid evidence - in the form of sworn affidavits by a substantial number of the astronauts and NASA workers that the landings were faked - and we will take them seriously and look at them on their merits. But just vague suspicions are so inadequate in the face of the overwhelming evidence that the landings were not faked that yes, people who believe they were faked without presenting equally strong evidence in support of that belief do indeed categorise themselves as "nutters, fruitcakes, idiots, fantasists etc etc."

To sum up, the difference between believing the landings were not faked, and believing that they were, is that the first is supported by massive objective evidence, the latter is not. All beliefs are not equal or equally probable - that depends on the quality of the evidence base.

[Croydon Bob]

now, was there a massive conspiracy to make people think the world was flat in the past?



No. People did not conspire with one another to convince others the world was flat.
Today there is still no conspiracy to convince others the world is flat.
Of course both in the past and today this does not stop some from believing the world is flat. In the past and today those who look at the evidence with an open mind come to the conclusion that the world is spherical.

Yes, Zero is correct. And there is still a group of people who claim, in the face of all the available evidence and scientific consensus, that the world is flat. This displays the same belief system as those who deny the moon landings, climate change, etc.

[bryan]

You'd think NASA could have hired some better actors, with the millions they swindled from the US taxpayers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro