New NASA moon photos show landing sites, footprints etc

[st_dux 26]

There's a huge difference between healthy skepticism and being a conspiracy nut.

There is. And anyone who doubts the legitimacy of the moon landings at this point falls into the latter category.

[sparks50 0]

This footprints and LRV as visible as a huge aircraft crashing into Pentagon :)

Yes. I wonder how the moon surface will look like 10 years after it has been colonized (if at all). No wind, there would be tracks/trials all over the place, and where there Isn't, you would be the first man alive to step on that specific place.

Until someone brings a giant snowcannon and ruins it ofcourse.

[That guy 10]

...like that guy getting punched in the face on the previous page...

i resent being punched in the face. i have already met my face punching quota for this month and dont appreciate going over it... again

:p

"healthy skepticism" dosnt really apply to something like the moon landings. the evidence claiming that its fake is very shaky and not very credible. plus most of the conspiracy theory's are more complex than the actual mission, and that is a warning sign right there...

healthy skepticism does to other things, such as aliens and ghosts. they are not "provable" or reproducible, and seem to be accepted on a more faith based level by most people. there is a whole truck load of horrid, poorly done, crazy people "evidence" and even more hoaxes.

but out of that mess there are isles of "credibility". in my opinion aliens have been visiting earth, but it could well be some big hoax. this is something that its very easy to be skeptical about

*its also a bit odd, when ever some one credible wants to seriously scientific study they can never get funding or cant get off the ground which only leaves the crazy people who are dead set on proving or disproving something (not that they do anything in the proper scientific method anyway...)

anyway, getting back to the original point, if you believe that the moon landings are fake, you might as well deny the holocaust, the invention of the light bulb and the existence of Australia. it holds about the same amount of water

[mrcash2009 0]

"healthy skepticism" dosnt really apply to something like the moon landings.

Well, I would say that it does on any subject, just a choice and thought process, pretty human thing really.

healthy skepticism does to other things, such as aliens and ghosts. they are not "provable" or reproducible

Is a moon landing though? in terms of anyone other than the one source.

in my opinion aliens have been visiting earth, but it could well be some big hoax. this is something that its very easy to be skeptical about

No less easy than a landing we cant reproduce.

*its also a bit odd, when ever some one credible wants to seriously scientific study they can never get funding or cant get off the ground which only leaves the crazy people who are dead set on proving or disproving something (not that they do anything in the proper scientific method anyway...)

Its odd on the aspect that no one can ever have the ability to do this or get the funding (and if they did would get shot down in flames pretty fast), like I say its a small few and from that you have to take what we have to show we have been up there.

if you believe that the moon landings are fake, you might as well deny the holocaust, the invention of the light bulb and the existence of Australia. it holds about the same amount of water

Wow, I would never link them in one example, worrying. Didn't realise moon landing were a yardstick to some one's sanity, sounds like a cult

Also the examples you gave are earthbound and provable to many which are not in the same ballpark.

I saw a recent Horizon doc referring to the earth's core and its effects with earth magnetic field and the weak spot where it was effecting Hubble near mexico pass over areas, causing spikes and could render it dead. So they worked this out (long story short) and now shut down parts for a time until it passes that area. This weak area is the magnetic force not repelling the suns rays/particles nearer to the earth at this point so they hit the hubble direct because of its higher altitude peaking out of the magnetic field at this point.

Now this is recent technology and just a satellite/telescope, yet in 60's tech we sent many men and buggies to drive around as far as the moon, miles and miles further with no real issue, these are the reasons, plus sun radiation that leave me chin stroking, other than that I can only take the word of Nasa and its info. I dont look at the landings I look at now and compare.

Edited September 9, 2011 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

Yes. I wonder how the moon surface will look like 10 years after it has been colonized (if at all). No wind, there would be tracks/trials all over the place, and where there Isn't, you would be the first man alive to step on that specific place.

Until someone brings a giant snowcannon and ruins it ofcourse.

That's a good point, each footprint could last for billions of years. No doubt NASA will learn from golf. If you have been in the bunker / sand trap you need to rake it afterwards! Yep, rake all those foot prints out or else!

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------

I saw a recent Horizon doc referring to the earth's core and its effects with earth magnetic field and the weak spot where it was effecting Hubble near mexico pass over areas, causing spikes and could render it dead. So they worked this out (long story short) and now shut down parts for a time until it passes that area. This weak area is the magnetic force not repelling the suns rays/particles nearer to the earth at this point so they hit the hubble direct because of its higher altitude peaking out of the magnetic field at this point.

Next time get a competent adult to watch it with you and explain it. It was 1 instrument on Hubble, specifically a sensitive particle/ray detector that you would expect to be affected. Apollo did not have one of those. It was designed with shielded systems to operate outside the Earth's magnetic field. Those systems were very minimally shielded as radiation in space is not as strong as many conspiracy theorists would have you believe.

It's all explained here:

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

Edited September 9, 2011 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

Next time get a competent adult to watch it with you and explain it. It was 1 instrument on Hubble, specifically a sensitive particle/ray detector that you would expect to be affected. Apollo did not have one of those. It was designed with shielded systems to operate outside the Earth's magnetic field. Those systems were very minimally shielded as radiation in space is not as strong as many conspiracy theorists would have you believe.

I was happy to read your links (any links) and what you posted, but I was utterly pissed off with the really not-needed-what-so-ever patronising tone at the start, leave it out mate. :q: I explained that off the top of my head without the full details sat in front of me, I did mention "(long story short)".

For the record the conspiracy theory isnt something I outright except or am lead to believe, that's the fence sitting part, I have my questions, and that's what I stated and still do, no harm and no need for the the stream of "tones and snipe" here.

The thing that would help more is when we get a return back (man) and better images and "footage", until then I like a fence, then again as I am never to get to space to know absolutely (or anyone) I still hold a touch of reservation on what im told, sorry but that's me.

Its a simple thing, how do you as an individual absolutely KNOW it to be correct of something outside of your full understanding and far away from where you will ever go in your entire lifespan, other than pictures and old wobbly footage to tell you? I am not that confident to say I know, and so, I hold back, nothing weird, nothing nuts, nothing wrong with that. The joke is unless you went there yourself you would never be satisfied, well, in actual fact that's not such a crazy concept in life.

Edited September 9, 2011 by mrcash2009

[soul_assassin 1723]

Next time get a competent adult to watch it with you and explain it.

who did you get to watch it with you?

[PELHAM 10]

who did you get to watch it with you?

My mommy watched it with me :D

Edited September 10, 2011 by PELHAM

[Innomadic 10]

This thread....just wow....

[PELHAM 10]

The thing that would help more is when we get a return back (man) and better images and "footage", until then I like a fence, then again as I am never to get to space to know absolutely (or anyone) I still hold a touch of reservation on what im told, sorry but that's me.

Its a simple thing, how do you as an individual absolutely KNOW it to be correct of something outside of your full understanding and far away from where you will ever go in your entire lifespan, other than pictures and old wobbly footage to tell you?

This is not meant to be patronising but I don't know how to put it any other way.

1. How do you know the earth is round? You have not seen it from space? Until you do you must not believe it?

2. Does Antarctica really exist? Got to say I will not believe it till I see it. I'm sure all those scientists, the military and those people that supposedly go there are just making it up. I agree with you I will not believe it until I see it myself.

I mean what proof do we have? Only pictures right? They bring back ice but you know ice is ice, it could have been made in someone's freezer.

I heard it's all been filmed on a set in a remote location in northern Canada.

If anyone tells the truth all their families will be murdered by a secret force of US federal agents.

[mrcash2009 0]

Note that everything you mention and others are earth bound and provable was my point before as regards examples.

Well, anyway we will end in an loop never to go any place, I agree to differ and no more to be said than I sit on the fence as I described already, and I have no issues if others dont, all choices.

Otherwise the thread will never end in infinite quotes and sub quotes and a game of "Pelham tennis" :) , I posted to defend my point once I was quoted and listed in nut land, all on the previous page and that's all really now, its all been covered.

Happy days.

Edited September 10, 2011 by mrcash2009

[Daniel 0]

You can prove the moon landings without using NASA sources. There are plenty of observatories that can fire lasers at the reflectors left behind by Apollo astronauts.

[PELHAM 10]

Note that everything you mention and others are earth bound and provable was my point before as regards examples.

Happy days.

Well if you accept people have been to Antarctica, and most of us have only seen pictures of it on TV, there is a mountain of similar evidence that conclusively points to people going to the moon.

The conspiracy theorists have not provided anything to the contrary. If the US faked the moon landings, someone involved would know and would eventually tell. Even the USSR which monitored the entire program very closely, lets face it, they had people in NASA , did not express 1 word of doubt.

---------- Post added at 01:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 PM ----------

You can prove the moon landings without using NASA sources. There are plenty of observatories that can fire lasers at the reflectors left behind by Apollo astronauts.

That's a good one I often quote.

[soul_assassin 1723]

Well if you accept people have been to Antarctica, and most of us have only seen pictures of it on TV, there is a mountain of similar evidence that conclusively points to people going to the moon.

The conspiracy theorists have not provided anything to the contrary. If the US faked the moon landings, someone involved would know and would eventually tell. Even the USSR which monitored the entire program very closely, lets face it, they had people in NASA , did not express 1 word of doubt.

false premise. Trips to Antarctica have been conducted by many independent parties, not by just one organisation.

[PELHAM 10]

false premise. Trips to Antarctica have been conducted by many independent parties, not by just one organisation.

Many independent organisations were involved in the Apollo program including tracking stations and radio telescopes in many different countries. If the Apollo program was faked how were the radio signals captured in radio telescopes pointing at the landing sites? Are all those governments and international scientists involved in the hoax too. Including the USSR and present Russian government?

More than 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, and a dozen men who walked on the Moon returned to Earth to recount their experiences. Hundreds of thousands of people—including astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians would have had to keep the secret. It would have been much easier to really land on the Moon than to generate such a huge conspiracy to fake the landings.

[soul_assassin 1723]

Many independent organisations were involved in the Apollo program including tracking stations and radio telescopes in many different countries. If the Apollo program was faked how were the radio signals captured in radio telescopes pointing at the landing sites? Are all those governments and international scientists involved in the hoax too. Including the USSR and present Russian government?

More than 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, and a dozen men who walked on the Moon returned to Earth to recount their experiences. Hundreds of thousands of people—including astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians would have had to keep the secret. It would have been much easier to really land on the Moon than to generate such a huge conspiracy to fake the landings.

and you are gravely mistaken if you think that everyone of those people knows everything whats going on. People only know what they need to know. I mean lets for a second assume that a conspiracy exists dont you think that the clearance would be beyond any top secret seal?

[Daniel 0]

I'm sure Soviet Russia would have been the first to debunk the official US line if they had any reason to suspect a hoax. They had the most to gain from it being "revealed".

[PELHAM 10]

and you are gravely mistaken if you think that everyone of those people knows everything whats going on. People only know what they need to know. I mean lets for a second assume that a conspiracy exists dont you think that the clearance would be beyond any top secret seal?

For a conspiracy to exist you need people to take part in it. How were the thousands of engineers and technicians, press, astronauts families etc kept in the dark? It's not possible, just think it through.

You cannot hide certain facts:

The Scientists and engineers manning the radio tracking stations and radio telescopes in different countries across the world over 10 years receiving telemetry knew the positions of the space craft throughout the missions. Members of the press talked to the Apollo crew during the mission and the signals and feed went through all that equipment. 100s of people would have listened to it and checked the quality at all those stations.

The launchpad technicians who sealed the astronauts into the vehicle. With all the cameras watching. The launchpad on launch day had hundreds of cameras and telescopes trained on it by members of the press and public as well as official observers. No one noticed anything odd.

We have pictures of astronauts setting up experiments and laser reflectors. Some of which are still in use to today. You could not have launched that equipment to the moon in secret - someone would have noticed the rockets heading into the sky. Not least the USSR.

Air force radar technicians of any number of countries including the USSR would have tracked the craft well into space. Not one has come forward to say anything was faked.

The geologists who analysed the moon rocks would have to fake their work.

The radar crews in the various Airforces around the world and on Navy ships who tracked the returning capsules from space would have to be in on it.

The technicians currently employed at NASA running the LRO which produced the pictures in post 1 would have to be in on it. Do you think they are still swearing staff to secrecy today and involving 100s more people and all of them have not said a word?

If you think that's possible let me know exactly how it was done. I can't wait.

Edited September 10, 2011 by PELHAM

[dmarkwick 261]

If you think that's possible let me know exactly how it was done.

Blow jobs.

[rangerpl 13]

The thing is that whether the landings occurred not a matter of opinion. It's FACT. There is no room for skepticism here because of the mountain of FACTUAL evidence that supports the fact the landings happened.

[sanctuary 19]

I'm sure Soviet Russia would have been the first to debunk the official US line if they had any reason to suspect a hoax. They had the most to gain from it being "revealed".

Exactly, the moon landing happened during the cold war, and even if you're too young to have known this period and have lived under a rock in which history books were not present, you can't ignore it was a time of heavy "propaganda war" between both side.

If the soviet side accepted that the moon landing was not faked, it's certainly because it occured, soviet side like the western one had their share of high level competent scientists that would have surely debunked it if it was truly some kind of studio mounted fake.

There was a lot of public opinion to conquer in this kind of communication battle for them to let this go on if it was really a fake.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Sanctuary

[solidsnake2384 10]

Just watch Mythbusters........

[jblackrupert 14]

Just go out and get laid..... for the love of god.......

[PELHAM 10]

Just go out and get laid..... for the love of god.......

You have to go out to get laid? :pet5: I don't

[jblackrupert 14]

I hate August and September. Freaking basement dwelling, never kissed a girl, off their meds kooks are out in bigger numbers then usual.