Take THAT, moon conspiracy theorists...

[Omaroo]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

Finally, LRO has taken a low-periapse orbit in sunlight to within 21km (instead of the previous 50km) and imaged a swathe of high-resolution photographs of the lunar surface that CLEARLY show twin wheel tracks of the lunar rovers and footprints in high detail.

As is the animal, conspiracy theorists probably won't take heed and still refute these images. I pity their stupidity and really wonder why their psychology is as twisted as it is. I guess that they have to try and prove to the world that they, as individuals, are still smarter than everyone else on this mortal coil. Well...either that or they refuse to believe that anyone at all could be clever enough to pull off the real thing - obviously because they themselves never could.

Anyway - travel to the NASA site (www.nasa.gov) and check the LRO page listed at the top of this post for more photos and interactive items. Fascinating stuff. :thumbsup:

[iceman]

Incredible images. I <3 LRO :)

The video on that link is nice too.

[bojan]

Nah... all those images are doctored, then placed on the NASA website to cover up the Great Conspiracy .. and hide the presence of aliens coming from Zeta Reticuli on our Moon :P

EDIT - just in case someone takes my above comment too seriously - of course I am joking.. and I am sure comments similar to this one will surface sooner or later.

[iceman]

Can you imagine astronauts on the Moon now?
They could track their progress in real time! :)

[Omaroo]

I'm pretty sure the "wink" at the end of the line gives it away... :) You're safe for now. Besides... they came from Theta Reticuli.

[troypiggo]

Photoshop. There. I said it.

[wavelandscott]

Go big early!

To speak of secrets...Don't forget Apollo 18...and all of the US Military flights there to build the weapons base...

[CraigS]

Some of the conspiracists have some semi valid points. One of them relates to what we are asked to 'believe' when science is published, which in turn, is very much shaped by what we see in photographic images. Putting aside the hordes who worked on the moon landing programs, (and hard evidence such as the rocks retrieved), at the end of the day, I have to confess, the guy in the street has to rely very heavily on his/her imagination, and how things seem from photographic images. But how easy is it to deceive the eye ? (We covered some of this in a recent 'illusions' thread).

I'm starting to see these conspiracy theories as being motivated more by the trend away from science, and a reaction stemming from a 'loss of faith' in science and scientists, overall.
(This is of course, on top of the usual book publishing profit motives).

Cheers

[bloodhound31]

LOL! Onya Troy! That's the first thing that came to mind when i thought of all the times the conspiratione demanded we take photos to prove it, reasoning that because we can photograph galaxies millions of light years away, why can't we photograph something the size of a Hill's hoist on the moon?

Now that we are actually capable of doing so, they will claim Photoshop all the way no doubt.

[supernova1965]

One conspiracy theorist I knew insisted we had not sent ships to Mars because they would have to travel through the asteroid belt he insisted that it was between Earth and Mars. He was a very inteligent man a TAFE IT instructer so his belief totally floored me that he could believe that.:screwy:

He also believed we had not been to the moon

[CraigS]

Hey Warren;
Maybe he just meant the space junk field ??
:)
Cheers

[supernova1965]

That would be great but I tried to tell him it was between Mars and Jupiter and he mentioned the asteroid belt by name was bewteen Earth and Mars:D:lol:

[Omaroo]

Possibly Craig, yes - but this is not about any science concerned with evolving theories over debatable topics such as atmospheric processes or trends where postulation and observational results gel over time. It was an event in history - where real people did real things in real time that could not have happened without clever application of methods derived from the study of science. We aren't looking for results to justify a theory here.

[strongmanmike]

Sent the pics around work and here are two replies:

"I do believe we landed on the moon, and ignore the sceptics, but if I was a sceptic, I don’t know whether this photo would convince me.
It reminds me of the billions of unclear UFO photos I have seen. Mind you, I do believe we are not alone, we just are not reachable. "

and

"PHOTOSHOPPED!!!!!

Interesting pic Mike"

So, unfortunately still not 100% no matter what you provide as evidence :rolleyes:

:whistle: Just like this information doesn't convince some people either:

Summary1 (http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/)

Summary2 (http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange.html)

[CraigS]

Hmm .. interesting conversation …

(Don't take me too seriously here by the way Chris .. I'm just dancin' around some thoughts because I too have troubles in understanding these folk .. so I respond by trying to open up my mind to a world in which their behaviours make some rational sense .. I hate using the word 'stupid' as a way of dismissing others' views .. (my flaw)… )

The Moon Landings could be viewed as one giant scientific 'experiment' which produced results requiring interpretation .. (which requires a theory of some sort). I guess apart from the inspiration generated by the exercise, the theory directly put to the test by the landings, was the origin of the moon. (There's always a theory lurking in thar somewhere !!).
;) :)
Cheers

[Omaroo]

Also, for clarification (@Mike ;) ) by stating "debatable topics such as atmospheric processes" I infer "topics that must be left open to debate - such as, for example, determination of the actual level of our contribution to atmospheric processes".

I implore that you don't turn this into another bloody climate change post. It was not the intent of this original post. Keep to the subject - moon conspiracies.

[troypiggo]

I just wanted to clarify that I was kidding above too. If there's kooks out there claiming they really believe these are photoshopped, I don't want to be associated with them. :)

[telemarker]

Keeping with the title of the post, didn't one of the astronauts punch someone who suggested that the landings were fake? A definitive "Take that"!

[multiweb]

Those shots are very very cool. :thumbsup:

[Omaroo]

As a friend from MAS just stated on our own website forum:



I think that he has a good point. Many don't seem or want to realise that these are merely entertainment, nothing more.

[Barrykgerdes]

When I went to school (1949) the physics master (Bertie Roberts) taught us that it was impossible for man to leave the earth and used to quote the scientific facts that supported it.

He never lived long enough to see the space exploration start so probably died knowing he was right.

If he was still alive I would expect him to be a foremost moon landing conspiratist.

Barry

[Omaroo]

How did he attempt to explain the physics Barry?

[ngcles]

Hi Chris & All,

Well here's another opportunity Bart Sibrel and Bill Kaysing (and others) to swallow their pride and finally apologise for "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon" and creating/promoting the Moon Hoax theories and silly hooplah that goes with them. (I think a personal apology to Buzz Aldrin from Bart is called for too)

Bart has indicated in the past that if photographic proof has forthcoming he would withdraw his claims and apologise, so ... how about it Bart?

I'm waiting (though I'm not holding my breath).


Best,

Les D

[Barrykgerdes]

Gee Chris
That was 60+ years ago. As I didn't believe him I don't remember his reasons.

Barry

[Omaroo]

Even basic high school physics explains that it's possible to leave Earth and enter orbit given the correct horizontal vector. Tsiolkovsky had provided all that was necessary near the turn of the 20th century!

[Barrykgerdes]

Bertie was probably well past his learning days at the turn of the 20th century. He was over 70 when he was my teacher.

Barry

[strongmanmike]

Not wanting to do that at all Chris...only at the end of my post did I just use the strange but remaining dogged resistance to Climte Change evidence as a clear comparison with the equally strange remaining dogged resistance to moon landing evidence...given dogged resistance to clear evidence was at the heart of your post I thought, although a little cheeky :D...this was quite on topic really :thumbsup:.

But I agree, the moon landing deniers get on my goat too :lol:

Mike

[ZeroID]

I think the 'deniers' are just plain scared. It's all gotten way too big for them to comprehend it all so they deny it. .
The Flat Earth Society fit into that bill as well. Confess that as I get older I find it harder to adapt and learn clever new concepts and technologies so I tend to ignore them and I've been the instigator of several major technological shifts in the company I work for in the last 15 years or so. One of them has been so upgraded I hardly even recognise it but it still does the job it was designed for after 10 years now and nothing outside can come near it for efficiency.
Just shows ya ...

They are scared of the world, that is all.

[Stu Ward]

I thought this post was going to be about a British Pop band ........

Sorry

Stu

[asimov]

Irrefutable proof that Photoshop works well in the right hands..;)

This should shut them up, but I'd doubt it:rolleyes:

[TrevorW]

Capricorn 1 ruined it for the moon landing

Ok where did all those men and rockets go once they were launched into space

Several days just orbiting good old earth

Moon conspirators should be taken out and shot IMO !!!


200 years into the future
Mildred and George out for a stroll along the rim of Theophilus Crater,
"Mildred isn't the earth rise lovely tonight"
"Yes dear"
George notices some colour under the dust bending over he unearths a flag,
"Well look at this Mildred an old American flag, how'd that get here"
"Must have been left here recently by those movie people you know those sci-fi ones doing that fictional movie on the early moon landings"
"Yeah but why have made in America 1969 in small print, printed on the tag, and property of NASA, you know nothing has been made in America for over 200 years and NASA has been defunct for 150"

[erick]

Try to convince them to walk in straight lines?

[Omaroo]

A good comment on today's Slashdot:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/06/1858247/NASA-Reveals-New-Images-of-Apollo-Landing-Sites

[gregbradley]

Great Nasa image and that was the first thing I thought of as well. It would shut up the Moon conspiracy people but as pointed out it probably won't shut up the hard core ones.

Greg.

[hotspur]

Thanks for posting Chris,great to see-amazing stuff.:thumbsup:

I do not have time to look around the web to find these,and other interesting
articles seen here in 'general discussions'.

Not matter how much verification a subject can have-there will still be non believers,(there are people that still believe that 'moon/plane' image I captured last year is a fake,and even more bizzare-a very few think its not an astro-photograph'),

Hope we get to see more of these amazing images that NASA has now made available.

Cheers.

[ballaratdragons]

Bah! Humbug!

They are staged shots taken from a Helicopter hovering high above Area 51 :D

[Ric]

Amazing images from the LRO

I suppose it doesn't really matter what proof is published, those conspiracy wallys will always find something to bark on about.

[alistairsam]

Hi,

These pics are great and this whole conspiracy theory should be put to rest cause there's no technical reason why we could not have landed on the moon.
but I keep getting asked the question "if this image was taken by a satellite from 14 miles above the moon, why isn't it as clear as say images in google maps where you can see cars easily and the scale is 10metres".

I'm not sure which satellite is used by google maps or what the altitude is, but is this to do with differences in cameras used and/or altitude?
I presume the apollo descent module is the same size as a car.

I have no doubts that we did go, but wanted to understand the imaging bit.

[bojan]

Camera will definitely make a huge difference.


It could also be that in your example conventional aerial cameras are used.. mounted on the planes.
I am pretty sure nearmap.com doesn't use satellites for their maps.

Also, it's not the same thing to have 100kg camera on the satellite orbiting Earth, and the one orbiting Moon (the latter one requires much more effort to bring it to the destination .. and considering recent NASA cuts... you know what I mean)

[avandonk]

Bah you think that 31km is low flying! I would have got better pictures in my Cesnna at 500ft!
There are no stars in the pictures.
The shadows are all wrong for that latitude.
Where are the footprints from the astronaut after he abandoned the LRV.
Makes you think does it not!

This is the sort of tripe the that the idiots will come up with.

Bert

[bartman]

No:(:confused2: no twasnt me.......
twas Bart Sibrel........
who the ....is Bart Sibrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Sibrel)?
Google here I come.....
Ah all clear now
Thanks Les ;):thumbsup::P
BARTMAN

[bojan]

yeah..
You can't beat them can you :P
Perhaps we should just leave them live in their little imagined world.. hardly worth the trouble attempting to "straighten the meandering river" (rough translation of proverb from where I am originally from).

[renormalised]

You can beat them, actually. It's just that you may end up on assault charges!!!!:):):P:P

[Waxing_Gibbous]

I was a annoyed by the Leader on 'Yahoo' - "Satellite photograhs trash left behind on moon" or similar.
Article goes on in this vein making it sound like they left a bunch of beer bottles and KFC buckets lying around.
I'm getting weapons-grade bored of 'news' services slagging-off everything humans do in space as contamination or speciesistic-imperialism. I'm even more bored of people swallowing it.
We have every right, even obligation to explore other worlds.
A couple of tons of sterile metal and glass isn't going to make a dent in any one of them.
OK.
Rant finished. :D

[Omaroo]

I'm entirely with you Peter. It was said on 10 News tonight as well - the word "junk". Well, that'd be the most valuable and purposeful "junk" in human history.

[Jen]

:lol::lol::lol:

[ballaratdragons]

Alistair, the long distance shots are by satellites, but only down to a certain altitude, then aerial photography takes over.
The lower altitude images are from planes only a few thousand feet up. :thumbsup:

[renormalised]

Take it from someone who has a fair bit of experience with this sort of stuff, at 10 metres resolution, you will not see a car. You'll be flat out seeing most houses. To see a house with any sort of clarity, you need at least 1-2 metre resolution on the detectors. That also goes for cars. 5 metre resolution, which is quite common on many satellites, will only show most cars as a pixel...and that's for a large car. A house will cover 2-3 pixels for most houses. Most commercial and governmental run environmental monitoring platforms, such as Landsat and Spot, have a series of detectors which range in resolution from 1-2 metres for the high res detectors to 5-10 metres for the medium res detectors.

Most of those shots you see in Google Earth were taken from planes flying anywhere between 20000 and 40000 feet. The only orbiting platforms which have the capability to view houses, cars and even people at such high resolutions are the US Keyhole and LaCrosse satellites and the Russian Persona satellites. The Persona's have a resolution of 33cm, which is less than the LaCrosse satellites which can track and identify targets the size of a tennis ball from 700km. So, the chances you'd get of seeing any of these images from such satellites appearing at all in Google are even less than nothing. They're purely top secret military imaging satellites.

[netwolf]

Track a tennis ball from 700km wow, that is some resolution. What is more amazing is how much money the world spends on spying on each other.
I dont doubt we went to the moon, but I am open to debate.