Moon Hoax claims on the verge of destruction

[Undesired Walrus]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm

In 2008* NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972.


*Note: The LROC was launched last month, not its original launch of October 2008.

[SpitfireIX]

"NASA faked the new pictures." :rolleyes:

"They secretly landed unmanned spacecraft that look like Apollo artifacts." :eek:

"These photographs are clear evidence of an alien civilization on the moon." :faint:

[fullflavormenthol]

I actually go with the idea that they will claim that the pictures are fake.

[Dr. Lao]

LRO flew over the Apollo 17 landing site today, not sure if it was imaged, its still in its shakedown and not in its final orbit.

[defaultdotxbe]

I actually go with the idea that they will claim that the pictures are fake.
yeah, NASA already gave us pictures (and videos, and rocks) from the moon and that didnt convince the CTers, why would you think a new batch of pictures would convince them?

[geni]

Largely dead anyway. The counter arguments and evidence is just too easy to find these days.

[dudalb]

Way too optimistic, Walrus.
The Moonbats will just scream "Fake!" as several people have already noted.

[Whiplash]

I agree. Not only will some cry "fake", I bet some will also go so far as to suggest it was purposely set up all for the purposes of reinforcing the moon landing "myth", because so many people are waking up to the "truth".

[dudalb]

It's not like Hardcore Conspiracy Kooks are into being convinced by evidence. If they were, they would probably not be Conspiracy Kooks.
And the Moonbats are almost all Hardcore.

[Undesired Walrus]

For some reason I thought this was an ESA mission. Must not have read my OP well.

Yes, they probably will scream 'NASA fake'.

That said, if NASA did fake it, how did they not count on something like the LROC (Or a manned mission) being launched by the Soviet Union, being unable to photograph the landers, promptly humiliating the US and winning a large chunk of the newly disenchanted world over to communism?

[Jiddu]

That said, if NASA did fake it, how did they not count on something like the LROC (Or a manned mission) being launched by the Soviet Union, being unable to photograph the landers, promptly humiliating the US and winning a large chunk of the newly disenchanted world over to communism?

Exactly..and the Russians openly stated that thy were tracking each of the Apollo missions at the time.

Much momentum has been lost since the death of Bill Kaysing, the chief architect of the madhouse. Although, like many conspiracry theories, he created a very lucrative outlet.

[CptColumbo]

So here's how my day went yesterday:

Went to work. Went to the Twins game, which they lost to the White Sox 8-7.

Oh, and met Buzz Aldrin.

He was signing his book at the Mall of America. No one was punched while I was there.

[Elizabeth I]

So here's how my day went yesterday:

Went to work. Went to the Twins game, which they lost to the White Sox 8-7.

Oh, and met Buzz Aldrin.

He was signing his book at the Mall of America. No one was punched while I was there.

That must have been a disappointment. :D

[Blender Head]

Exactly..and the Russians openly stated that thy were tracking each of the Apollo missions at the time.

Much momentum has been lost since the death of Bill Kaysing, the chief architect of the madhouse. Although, like many conspiracry theories, he created a very lucrative outlet.

Wow, that Kaysing guy believed Apollo 1's fire and the Challenger disaster was a conspiracy?

Kaysing also claimed that NASA staged both the Apollo 1 fire and the Challenger accident, deliberately murdering the astronauts on board. He suggested that NASA might have learned that these astronauts were about to expose the conspiracy and needed to guarantee their silence.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Kaysing#Charges_that_the_Moon_landing_was_a_h oax)

Isn't that a well-worn claim made by conspiracists in almost every other situation to 'keep people silent'?

I wonder what he thought of the Columbia crash. :covereyes

[Toke]

Come on, "they" can get all the worlds engineers (including unfriendly countries) to keep quiet on 9/11 and got the soviet union to collaborated on the moon hoax.
How difficult would it be to fake some more pictures?:D

[CORed]

I agree. Not only will some cry "fake", I bet some will also go so far as to suggest it was purposely set up all for the purposes of reinforcing the moon landing "myth", because so many people are waking up to the "truth".

Wouldn't it be easier to get all of the people who are waking up to the truth in the same phone booth and blow it up?

[CORed]

I actually go with the idea that they will claim that the pictures are fake.

I don't know. That might be too logical for moonhoaxers. I think they might go with the alien civilization explanation.

[fullflavormenthol]

I don't know. That might be too logical for moonhoaxers. I think they might go with the alien civilization explanation.
You have a point. I'll go ahead and make up a CT myself (you'll see it here first folks).

Flavor's fake CTOkay. So...the Reptilians have had a moon base for thousands of years (ever wonder why the moon factors into so much mythology? Um?) {Cue X-Files theme} So the Catholic Church has been aware of the Reptilians for years (which is the secret real reason the Church was formed), and have been secretly holding them in check. Eventually though the Reptilians created the Protestant Reformation to strip power from Catholic church to influence the government, hence the taking away the Catholic Churches ability to counter balance the Reptilian monarchies. So the Catholic church was defeated in terms of being an effective force agains the Reptilians, and despite killing certain high profile Reptilians (like Abraham Lincoln) they could never really strike hard enough to really hold the Reptilians back.

The was until they were able to get one of their own in the White House, you see Kennedy was a secret Vatican Jesuit operative sent to start a mission to the moon to strike at the Reptilian base. None of the Apollo missions ever made it to the moon, they were really attacks against the Reptilian moon base! You see you don't know because a truce was reached, and this stalemate meant that neither the Catholic Church nor Reptilians will ever attain too much power. Futurama hints at the by showing the Space Pope as a Reptile, hence the Reptile-Catholic Alliance.

"They" (The Lizard Catholics) have already planted a fake landing sight to cover up the space war and to hide the Space Vatican.

So I wonder if my CT would take off if I poseted it at the Icke forums or ATS forums. :D

[dropzone]

If I may indulge in the slightest moment of woo, in my life I've seen a pile of snapshots in my time and the best of the Moon photos are remarkably clear and good for being the products of amateurs.

There. That's out of my system, since a Hasselblad shooting 120 film leaves a lot of spare pixels grains of silver that can be sacrificed to the cropping process. And the most striking thing about them is how CLEAR they are. We think of air as being invisible, but on Earth it and what it contains are always there, reflecting and refracting light.

[Alferd_Packer]

If I may indulge in the slightest moment of woo, in my life I've seen a pile of snapshots in my time and the best of the Moon photos are remarkably clear and good for being the products of amateurs.



If I recall, Nasa has a web site where you can see ALL of the pictures, including the messed up ones

[SpitfireIX]

If I may indulge in the slightest moment of woo, in my life I've seen a pile of snapshots in my time and the best of the Moon photos are remarkably clear and good for being the products of amateurs.

There. That's out of my system, since a Hasselblad shooting 120 film leaves a lot of spare pixels grains of silver that can be sacrificed to the cropping process. And the most striking thing about them is how CLEAR they are. We think of air as being invisible, but on Earth it and what it contains are always there, reflecting and refracting light.


http://www.clavius.org/photoqual.html

As a matter of fact, a significant percentage of the lunar surface photographs are blurred, unfocused, incorrectly exposed, or otherwise flawed. These photos weren't generally known to the public until recently because they weren't interesting to editors and publishers of popular works and therefore not cost-effective to duplicate. But now that it's possible to efficiently digitize the many thousands of photographs taken on the moon (even the bad ones) and distribute them cheaply via the Internet, we can see the full gamut of lunar surface photography. . . .

The Apollo astronauts were trained in "zone focusing", a technique used by photojournalists and sports photographers who often don't have the time to focus visually or by measurement. At a high f-stop, a camera's depth of field increases. This means that when the lens is set to focus at a certain distance, objects somewhat nearer and farther from this ideal distance are also sharply focused. The narrower the aperture (i.e., the higher the f-stop), the greater the depth of field. And the sloppier the photographer can be be about his focus setting. The Zeiss Biogon lens used by the astronauts had an indicator that specified the near and far boundaries of the depth of field for each combination of focus and f-stop.

Zone focusing is a technique whereby the f-stop is kept high, resulting in lenient depths of field. The focus range is then divided into "zones" corresponding approximately to near, medium, and far. These zones of clear focus overlap slightly and correspond to preset positions of the focus ring. The Zeiss Biogon lens provided to the astronauts had "detents" or click-stops that corresponded to these three zones. The astronaut had simply to push the tab on the focus ring to one of three easy-to-find stops to select the focus zone depending on the rough distance to the subject.

[Longfellow]

If I may indulge in the slightest moment of woo, in my life I've seen a pile of snapshots in my time and the best of the Moon photos are remarkably clear and good for being the products of amateurs*.
...snip



It's not really fair to characterize the astronauts as 'amateurs'.

Astronaut Training for Lunar Photography

The Apollo astronauts underwent intensive training in preparation for their Moon explorations. Over the several years prior to the Moon missions, scientific and photographic training was provided. Astronauts were encouraged to take training cameras on trips to become more familiar with the camera operation and to enhance their photographic technique.
...snip

Link (http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html)<-history.nasa.gov

At that link you'll find link to yet another example of NASA's penchant for acronyms: GReat Images in Nasa. GRIN (http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/).

*emphasis added

[CptColumbo]

If I may indulge in the slightest moment of woo, in my life I've seen a pile of snapshots in my time and the best of the Moon photos are remarkably clear and good for being the products of amateurs.

Bolding mine.

Mistakes were made by the "amateurs" when it came to documenting their trips to the moon. Most notably on Apollo 12. Al Bean pointed a color television camera directly at the sun while he was moving it and burned out the tubes. He also forgot to stowaway a camera mounted to the forward windows of the CM and was knocked out when the capsule splashed down. They also lost a timer they were going to use, so the two of them could be in the same shot.

[dropzone]

As is said back home, "Ignorance fought."

ETA: I once heard there was an argument in Apollo 8 whether they should shoot what is now the classic Earthrise (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.princeton.edu/~willman/Earthrise.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.princeton.edu/~willman/&usg=__ezAK6O0vVbrU_yZRCDiaGMfnDQc=&h=433&w=510&sz=33&hl=en&start=2&sig2=_8sQz5gRZgbA9sfXy8zm1w&um=1&tbnid=1bff0k0-usn8kM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Earthrise%2522%26hl%3Den%26rls%3 Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7ADBR%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=FpBeSun-LsbSlAePwtznDA) photo. Rank amateurs! ;)

[Dr. Lao]

Yeah, but Al Bean saved Apollo 12 when it got hit by a lightning strike on launch, he was able to get the power back up and running.

[Tomblvd]

Yeah, but Al Bean saved Apollo 12 when it got hit by a lightning strike on launch, he was able to get the power back up and running.


Heh, awsome catch!

But in all fairness, it was EECOM John Aaron that made the now famous call, "Try SCE to aux". It was then Bean who was the only one to remember where the SCE switch was located.

[CptColumbo]

As is said back home, "Ignorance fought."

ETA: I once heard there was an argument in Apollo 8 whether they should shoot what is now the classic Earthrise (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.princeton.edu/~willman/Earthrise.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.princeton.edu/~willman/&usg=__ezAK6O0vVbrU_yZRCDiaGMfnDQc=&h=433&w=510&sz=33&hl=en&start=2&sig2=_8sQz5gRZgbA9sfXy8zm1w&um=1&tbnid=1bff0k0-usn8kM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Earthrise%2522%26hl%3Den%26rls%3 Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7ADBR%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=FpBeSun-LsbSlAePwtznDA) photo. Rank amateurs! ;)
From what I have heard they still argue (good naturedly) about who took the photo. Lovell claims he did, and Anders and Borman say they don't know who did, but they know it wasn't Lovell.

Bill Anders took most of the photos and most likely took "Earthrise."

[Jungle Jim]

...and the moon rocks are fake too!

'Moon rock' in Dutch museum is just petrified wood
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090827/EU.Netherlands.Not.Moon.Rock/

[Jiddu]

Heh, awsome catch!

But in all fairness, it was EECOM John Aaron that made the now famous call, "Try SCE to aux". It was then Bean who was the only one to remember where the SCE switch was located.

..and Bean was the only 'LM pilot' to have actually flown the thing on a mission.

[Rolfe]

Largely dead anyway. The counter arguments and evidence is just too easy to find these days.


Where is the easiest one-stop-shop to find them? A guy I work with just announced he's a moon-hoax believer.

Rolfe.

[Slayhamlet]

Where is the easiest one-stop-shop to find them? A guy I work with just announced he's a moon-hoax believer.

Rolfe.

Here's a good place to start: http://www.clavius.org

[geni]

Where is the easiest one-stop-shop to find them? A guy I work with just announced he's a moon-hoax believer.

Rolfe.

Depends. The shorter version would probably be the likes of:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

For the heavyweight debunking see:

http://www.clavius.org

For independent evidence see:

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

[SpitfireIX]

Where is the easiest one-stop-shop to find them? A guy I work with just announced he's a moon-hoax believer.

Rolfe.


Here's a brief but informative discussion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151909) from a week ago about various debunking resources.

I'd suggest reading Clavius in order to educate yourself; Jay's writing is truly a treat, IMO. But for reasons noted in the thread, it might not be the best place to point some conspiracists at first. You might also enjoy the new debunking blog I mention in my post.

[Rolfe]

Thank you everyone.

Rolfe.

[fuelair]

Wouldn't it be easier to get all of the people who are waking up to the truth in the same phone booth and blow it up?
and a lot more fun!!:D

[Toke]

I must admit that during my first portstay in Los Angeles/Longbeach I was toying with the moonhoax idea.
The performance in Tacoma were more reassuring.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So here's how my day went yesterday:

Went to work. Went to the Twins game, which they lost to the White Sox 8-7.

Oh, and met Buzz Aldrin.

He was signing his book at the Mall of America. No one was punched while I was there.

Did you ask him what it was like to be the first man to land on Bart Sibrels jaw? ;)

[Toke]

Did you ask him what it was like to be the first man to land on Bart Sibrels jaw? ;)
Nominated for pith.:D

[Major Major]

A new and different force has weighed in on this topic:

"Man on the Moon: A Colossal Hoax That Cost Billions of Dollars"

http://krishna.org/man-on-the-moon-a-colossal-hoax-that-cost-billions-of-dollars/

You see, the moon is 800,000 miles farther away from the Earth than the Sun is, so the astronauts couldn't possibly have traveled 94 million miles in such a short time and . . .

:blackcat:

[Bloodtoes]

A new and different force has weighed in on this topic:

"Man on the Moon: A Colossal Hoax That Cost Billions of Dollars"

You see, the moon is 800,000 miles farther away from the Earth than the Sun is, so the astronauts couldn't possibly have traveled 94 million miles in such a short time and . . .

:blackcat:

LOL. I read that neurologica blog post too. It's amazing what some people believe. Honestly, my eyes kept darting around the page to see if this was really an Onion satire than something serious..

[shuize]

Moon Hoax claims on the verge of destruction


Oh contuwaaree:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil

[Darkieus]

Maybe I can clear something up here if CT's would take the time and money but...

...I currently possess a high-powered telescope in my backyard, purchased when my father left the military, and with it if the Moon is full and close enough, you can see the American Flag and the base of the Lunar Lander used to settle on the moon.

So I don't know what the big deal is. They landed on the moon - yay. So did the Russians at one point.

What's the big deal?

[WildCat]

So did the Russians at one point.

No, they didn't. Unless you're counting the unmanned probe/rover.

[geni]

Maybe I can clear something up here if CT's would take the time and money but...

...I currently possess a high-powered telescope in my backyard, purchased when my father left the military, and with it if the Moon is full and close enough, you can see the American Flag and the base of the Lunar Lander used to settle on the moon.

So I don't know what the big deal is. They landed on the moon - yay. So did the Russians at one point.

What's the big deal?

Um no.

[Darkieus]

That's what I'm counting.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

...I currently possess a high-powered telescope in my backyard, purchased when my father left the military, and with it if the Moon is full and close enough, you can see the American Flag and the base of the Lunar Lander used to settle on the moon.

This high powered telescope... it wouldn't be a hollowed out supertanker hull with a mirror the size of 4 basketball courts, would it?

[gtc]

This high powered telescope... it wouldn't be a hollowed out supertanker hull with a mirror the size of 4 basketball courts, would it?

You mean you don't have a hollowed out supertanker in your back garden?

[CptColumbo]

You mean you don't have a hollowed out supertanker in your back garden?
I have a supertanker, next to the swingset, but I don't don't change my oil often enough for it to be hollow... yet.

[Toke]

I do not know what size telescope you need to se the flag, lander and golfcart.
But if it fit in a backyard the picture(s) would be standart fare on the internet.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I do not know what size telescope you need to se the flag, lander and golfcart.
But if it fit in a backyard the picture(s) would be standart fare on the internet.

It's not just the size and power of the telescope that's an issue here (though the telescope in question would have to be frakking huge), but all the earths atmosphere that is in the way.

Suffice it to say, fighting fire with fire in this case doesn't quite work. Throwing absurdly bogus info back at absurdly bogus info just leaves us with two piles of stupid to clean up.

[gtc]

Superman would be able to see the darkside of the moon from his backyard.

[CptColumbo]

Superman would be able to see the darkside of the moon from his backyard.
[geek mode]Superman lives in an apartment in Metropolis and the Fortress of Solitude doesn't have a back door.[/geek mode]

ETA: [geek mode]You also probably mean the "far-side" of the Moon.[/geek mode]

[SpitfireIX]

Where is the easiest one-stop-shop to find them? A guy I work with just announced he's a moon-hoax believer.

Rolfe.


Any developments in dealing with your co-worker?

[SpitfireIX]

Bump for Rolfe.

[Red3]

Oh contuwaaree:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil

I read that half asleep before my coffee and completely missed it was The Onion; I thought "poor man, age must have caught up with him" :D

[gmarshall]

I haven't seen these posted anywhere but maybe I missed them

w w w.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

You'll have to fix the link

G

[grmcdorman]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

[Praktik]

Wasn't there supposed to be a lower-altitude passover that would show the sites in greater detail?

[twinstead]

I don't know, that Apollo 14 100m image is pretty detailed when you can see the foot paths the astronauts made.

[Praktik]

ya I just remember people saying "oh ya these are great! But wait til we get the next pictures!"

[Toke]

Amazing what you can do with photoshop. [/CT]:D

[Trojan_Jockey]

Wasn't there supposed to be a lower-altitude passover that would show the sites in greater detail?

Passover you say? I knew the Jews were in on it.

[Praktik]

lolz! ya meant flyover or flyby or whatever it is the scienticians at NASA call it..;)

[hokie]

Did the moon hoax folks ever explain why its possible to bounce a laser off the moon using one of the mirrors placed by the astronauts?

[makaya325]

yeah, NASA already gave us pictures (and videos, and rocks) from the moon and that didnt convince the CTers, why would you think a new batch of pictures would convince them?

Rocks can always arrive on earth, via a small object colliding with the moon, and breaking off moon rocks

[Klimax]

Did the moon hoax folks ever explain why its possible to bounce a laser off the moon using one of the mirrors placed by the astronauts?

They said IIRC an automated robot placed them...

[hokie]

An automatic robot placed these objects in 1969? That's hilarious! No people go there and NASA had access and used automated robots of that caliber in 1969.

Thanks for sharing that tidbit with us Klimax.

[twinstead]

An automatic robot placed these objects in 1969? That's hilarious! No people go there and NASA had access and used automated robots of that caliber in 1969.

Thanks for sharing that tidbit with us Klimax.

Like truthers, HB's have an answer for everything. All they have to do is make things up. ;)

[SpitfireIX]

An automatic robot placed these objects in 1969? That's hilarious! No people go there and NASA had access and used automated robots of that caliber in 1969.

Thanks for sharing that tidbit with us Klimax.


Actually, the Soviets placed two with unmanned probes, and one can return reflections (the location of the other is not currently known with sufficient precision). The fact that the NASA retroreflectors are larger and more accurately aligned can be relatively easily handwaved away by the conspiracists. Therefore, I've never considered this particularly ironclad "proof" of the landings. The videos are the best, IMO, because simple physics can be used to conclusively demonstrate the impossiblility of certain events' having been filmed anywhere other than a vacuum under 1/6 earth's gravity.

[makaya325]

Moon rocks could break off and crash in earth, without any astronaut needed

[sts60]

Yes, but lunites (meteorites from the Moon) have fusion crusts, and will display other signs depending on their final environment and duration before discovery. They are readily distinguished from the hundreds of kilograms of lunar samples retrieved in situ by the Apollo astronauts.

On Bad Astronomy and apollohoax, this subject has been exhaustively picked over, including citations of hundreds of scientists worldwide who have investigated the Apollo lunar samples.

[TheDaver]

I don’t think the moon hoaxers are going anywhere. For the last 40 years, they’ve refused to understand that it just plain wasn’t possible to fake the moon landings with the audio/video technology of the time. In my opinion, in those 40 years, audio/video technology has progressed so much that it’s just too easy to make the case for anything being faked.

[makaya325]

I don’t think the moon hoaxers are going anywhere. For the last 40 years, they’ve refused to understand that it just plain wasn’t possible to fake the moon landings with the audio/video technology of the time. In my opinion, in those 40 years, audio/video technology has progressed so much that it’s just too easy to make the case for anything being faked.

While i do not believe the Moon hoax theorists concerning the fake landing, I do agree with them on the fact that Video evidence of anything can be faked, and is not 100% foolproof.

[Tomblvd]

While i do not believe the Moon hoax theorists concerning the fake landing, I do agree with them on the fact that Video evidence of anything can be faked, and is not 100% foolproof.

So how was it done?

[SpitfireIX]

Specifically, how was it done with 1960s-era technology?

[hokie]

The 1960s videos were analog of course. With records made by multiple news services I imagine it would be hard to conceal fabrications.

[tsig]

Like truthers, HB's have an answer for everything. All they have to do is make things up. ;)

Their facts are limited only by their imagination.

[Aitch]

Conspiracy: Did We Really Go To The Moon? currently being repeated on Virgin 3 (UK).

Relies heavily on Bill Kaysing. And somebody called René. Every so often, a spokesman from NASA gets a few seconds to speak.

I should have watched The Phantom Menace on ITV; it's about as beleivable.