Conspiracy Theorists, Meet The Moon 517
Spock the Baptist writes "You can read about an article entitled: "Telescope to challenge moon doubters" in the online edition of Sydney Morning Herald. The SMH reports that, "European scientists are to use the world's newest and largest telescope to see whether the spacecraft are still on the lunar surface." Does anyone really think that this will change the alleged minds of doubters?"
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
No, these people just want attention, they don't care if they're wrong or not.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Moon doubters are wrong. No doubt about it. They know it themselves.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if there were no doubters I think it would be a cool thing to do.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:3, Funny)
Sebastian
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Funny)
And then leave them there, because we've got enough wackos planetside.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:3, Funny)
I was just thinking that. But then I realized that you might get lucky and they'd try to prove it by opening their helmet.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Funny)
we already have proofs.. (Score:5, Informative)
Those mirrors are used to calculate the exact distance bertween earth and the moon by using a large laser and getting a few photons back to make the calculations.
Now, except if the doubters find a way to slingshot a miror on the moon, THIS is a quite valuable poof, as they DO exist and are used everyday.
Yep, it'll change their minds... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why else would somone try to show them otherwise?
Re:Yep, it'll change their minds... (Score:2)
Re: Yep, it'll change their minds... (Score:2, Funny)
> instead of doubting the moon landing, they will now be convinced that it's fake.
Wow - they went all the way up there just to put a fake lander on view!
They are all owned by... (Score:3, Funny)
Conspiracy Theorists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there will be tons of websites that crop up showing how the images were doctored, photoshopped, impossible, etc.
Some people just can't be convinced, and I'm not sure how much tax money should be spent on such a pursuit.
Re:Conspiracy Theorists... (Score:5, Interesting)
But the idea of moon landings not taking place is pretty idiotic. The US govt/NASA would have had to have been pretty stupid to fake the moon landings. After all they had to expect the Russians, or somebody else, would either go there sooner or later or send probesx to verify or just out of pure curiosity and they would look to be huge fools if no traces of landings were found.
Re:Conspiracy Theorists... (Score:4, Insightful)
I meant my statement to indicate the furthest that I would go in accepting the doubters argumentation. I can see, if I try really hard, how NASA MIGHT have been tempted to "help photography along" ie. retouch photos if they got a bunch of not very good material back. NASA would not be the first one to fall into that pit. What would you do if you just spent an obscene amount of money on a moon landing and all you had to show for it was bad photographic material? That being said I will consider every alternative other than even minimal retouching of NASA photos. I find it simply too hard to beleive that the USA and its Govt. would risk the colosal humiliation that a faked moonlanding would inevitably bring with it.
Re:Conspiracy Theorists... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Conspiracy Theorists... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody is forcing ignorance on you!
Re:Conspiracy Theorists... (Score:4, Funny)
Golden Hind is correct. (Score:3, Funny)
Lies! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Lies! (Score:3, Funny)
Lemme guess (Score:2)
Not that I wouldn't have modded it up myself, but I would have called it Funny.
Re:Lies! (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, you've got my support. To cut down on costs, though, I'm going to vote for the one-way ticket option.
Yeah, right, like this is proof! (Score:2, Funny)
(No, I do not believe that nonsense.)
Re:Yeah, right, like this is proof! (Score:2, Funny)
Step 1) Buy this [barnesandnoble.com].
Step 2) Put lunar lander sticker on lens.
Re:Yeah, right, like this is proof! (Score:2, Redundant)
Step 2) Put lunar lander sticker on lens.
Step 3) Profit!!!
Hogwash (Score:5, Funny)
And in other news.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And in other news.... (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, what do you know? Turns out that all the naysayers were right and Columbus was a deluded nutcase.
Re:And in other news.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm Is this necessary? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think about it the conspiracy theorists are just going to say we launched these things at the moon but no one ever actually set foot, its all just some plot to make them believe... yadda yadda.
Just commercialize space travel for a low cost, and let them go see the sites for themselves.
Re:Hmmm Is this necessary? (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm Is this necessary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Some feel that way about going to the moon in the first place, and that cost orders of magnitude more money.
Whoa - I can't wait (Score:2)
This would at least help (Score:5, Insightful)
The doubters will still doubt... (Score:2, Interesting)
An important question to ask is... how do the doubters benefit from these doubts? There is certainly a few nickels to be made.
What's funny is... these doubters must wake up everyday doubting even the most basic things. I imagine they take tests like these all day:
Without these tests... they never know what is real. They have to constantly prove (or in this case, disprove) everything.
What if... (Score:4, Insightful)
What if it shows them to be right?
Note: Although I'm beginning to see signs of conspiracy theorist (General paranoia, distrust of my own government, a sinking feeling that all my civil liberties are disappearing quickly, a belief that my government values the greed of corporations over the needs of its people, etc) in myself, I do not ascribe to the belief that the moon mission was faked.
Re:What if... (Score:3, Interesting)
But in a sense, mankind has never been to the moon. So ok, we may have sent 12 individuals to the moon, that's hardly mankind is it? And that was 30 years ago.
12 individuals don't really count as mankind, so we havn't REALLY been to the moon. We just visited it, very briefly, then decided it was too expensive.
Where's all these moon colonies we were promised?
Re:What if... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, (Score:2, Insightful)
That, "I want to believe" slogan/whatever is indicative of the minds and attitudes one is dealing with when dealing with people who think they are agent Mulder and that they are the only ones who realize the truth.
While they are at it .... (Score:2, Funny)
At least the Daily Sport admitted that it made up the stories as it was easier than doing the investigation.
Re:While they are at it .... (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lunar deniers are an extreme minority (in both senses), they do no harm to anyone; the way astronmers obsess about proving that man went to the moon is just as insane as saying that man never went.
Honestly, people who believe man never went to the moon will change nothing. Progress will continue. New projects will be financed, launched and will return spectacular results. The manned space station is in orbit right now, if you needed any proof of this.
There will always be people like the lunar deniers.
Get over it, and ignore them.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
Projects are financed by the state which is financed by it's people. Now some of those people don't believe their money is really spent right with NASA. That might hurt financing in the long run or may already do so; getting people enthousiastic is very important. And to get that done, they first have to believe.
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, assigning all these mysterious conspiracies to perfectly legitimate institutions like NASA is bad for their profile, which in turn could lead to further budget cuts.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Funny)
Humans landing on the moon is just one of many equally valid theories concerning the video footage and rock samples resulting from the Apollo program. The moon landing is a controversial theory. Instructional material associated with controversy should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Alabama history teachers are encouraged to devote class time to discussing other theories about the Apollo mission.
NASA Sues European Scientists.... (Score:5, Funny)
Allegedly, the European Scientists were using a new large telescope (technological means) to circumvent NASA encryption (Apparently they own that thing that if something's really freakin far away, you can't see it). Too bad the public will never know what really happened on that big orb in the night sky, so very, very far away.
what the government should do (Score:3, Funny)
It's a conspiracy! (Score:5, Insightful)
"The images from the telescope are actually made with subliminal images of the Coca Cola logo. If you turn the image upsides down, draw a square around the ship and read the horizon as a waveform you get the sound of John Lennon saying "JFK is not dead" backwards 3 times.
The "telescope" was actually a UFO that crashed on the moon and was hidden by the FBI and CIA for all these years. We have leaked documents to prove it!"
There is NO point trying to disprove conspiracy theories, that merely validates them, and gives the impression that these theories were taken seriously. Anyone can come up with a conspiracy theory about anything.
Problems with these people... (Score:5, Insightful)
You show them pictures, they say they've been doctored and are fakes.
You show them footage, they say it was staged and point out supposed inconsistancies.
You take them to the moon and show them the lander, they say it was planted there.
There is no end to it, just dont even bother.
Re:Problems with these people... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Problems with these people... (Score:4, Funny)
SHOTGUN! I'll be waiting in the Space Shuttle.
Re:Problems with these people... (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather than wasting money trying to convince unconvinceable people, spend money on education, particularly for children.
People are not, by nature, particularly good at many things. This certainly includes assessment of risks, and may include rational thought. You want to get reasonable people? Raise reasonable people.
Re:Problems with these people... (Score:5, Funny)
Well no shit. Isn't that what the argument is about?
It would seem to me they would have to say, "No, we are really in Arizona" at that point. This is when you encourage them to remove their helmet.
It's like one of those "How much do you believe" arguments to disprove alot of philosophy. Say you believe there is a chair all you want, let your mind and your body take a vote and see if your ass ends up on the floor.
Keep Luna Tidy! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Keep Luna Tidy! (Score:3, Interesting)
In the very long run, this gives some hope for an almost pristine Earth, with all the benifits of industry.
Re:Keep Luna Tidy! (Score:2)
The moon : a ridiculous liberal myth (Score:2, Funny)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Re:REDUNDENT!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
thx google.
Get at the root of the problem (Score:2, Interesting)
First, conspiracy theorists are motivated by a profound mistrust of the government. This is understandable given the vast over-extension of Federal powers that has taken place throughout the last 30 years. Intrusive Fedderal agencies like the FBi, ATF, EPA, and OSHA, among others, should have their powers curtailed. The Bush administration has made some good strides in this area, though it has clearly failed in others (e. g. the dangerous and hyterical PATRIOT act).
Second, the miserable failure of our public education system needs to be addressed. A lot of public ambivalence toward scientific breakthroughs like computers, genetic engineering, and space travel stems from ignorance. It is time to admit that our public education system as it stands is simply not getting the job done. Alternative libertarian measures such as the voucher system to allow families to send their children to private schools, and more support (tax breaks, etc) for home-schooling efforts have to be encouraged.
If proper measures are taken to root out and eliminate the social causes of conspiracy nuttiness, we will see far fewer people blindly accepting the crackpot theories of the "no-moon-landing" crowd.
Re:Get at the root of the problem (Score:2)
Governments are quite capable of spinning their own conspiracy theories, even ones which make less sense than those of the so called "nuts".
If proper measures are taken to root out and eliminate the social causes of conspiracy nuttiness, we will see far fewer people blindly accepting the crackpot theories of the "no-moon-landing" crowd.
But you'd also have people less willing to swallow the claims of politicans.
No moon, sorry. (Score:2, Funny)
Total geek: its 1:30AM PST in the morning and I'm on slashdot
Bang, ZOOM! (Score:3, Funny)
The American flag (Score:2)
Re:The American flag (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The American flag (Score:3, Funny)
Of no relevance to real research! (Score:3, Insightful)
why trust the russians? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:why trust the russians? (Score:2)
This isn't the conspiracy you're looking for. (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt it. Simply because the conspiracy theory isn't whether or not spaceships are on the moon but whether, to paraphrase JFK, man was sent to the moon and bought back alive (during the Apollo missions). Conspiracy theorists generally accept the existence of moon rocks and so forth because they consider it entirely plausible that unmanned spacecraft can help fulfill the various missions -- and indeed they did, for many years, before and after the Apollo missions and by several nations.
To repeat myself, the conspiracy theory hinges on whether or not it was/is impossible to send man to the moon and to bring him back alive. I should also add that I have no conspiritorial beliefs of my own on this subject.
Public relation (Score:3, Interesting)
Favorite quote (Score:2)
So he thinks we had robotics capable of complex remote operation ON THE MOON in the period of 1969 - 1972? Now that's thinking optimistically...
Re:Favorite quote (Score:2)
Compelling evidence that the moon landing was fake (Score:2, Funny)
Hit them with their own logic (Score:2, Funny)
As they say - cogito, ergo sum. What would happen if you challenged the doubters to prove that they did in fact have minds, then started calling their evidence 'doctored'? Would they disappear in a poof of their own logic?
I don't see how this will be conclusive... (Score:5, Insightful)
(384400km/16km)*.0001m = 2.4025m, which is to say that the telescope can see objects as small as 2.4 meters on the surface of the moon. That means the lander wouldn't be bigger than 2 pixels square.
"What's that little black dot?"
"That's the lander, duh."
"Still don't believe you"
You can never absolutely positively convince a person of the existance of a historical event. For all I know, the United States didn't even exist in 1950. Hell, I don't even believe in France, since I've never been there. I mean come on, you want me to believe that that silly French accent comes from a real language?!! Proposterous!
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I don't see how this will be conclusive... (Score:4, Funny)
Fantastic documentary (Score:5, Interesting)
They went on explaining that Kubrick as a perfectionist decided to shoot it himself, how the CIA got rid of the witnesses one by one in the seventies, and how eventually Kubrick died "unexpectedly" in 1999, just before he could make some revelations.
The whole documentary was backed with interviews with Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, and TV footage from Nixon's White House. None of these interviews were dubbed. They only cut it the right way.
As a critical person, I sat on my chair all the time thinking : "This can't be true ! That'a amazing !". The great thing is they didn't deny the moon landing at all so it made all the rest seem plausible. Then after half an hour they revealed it was all manipulation. The moon hoax theory was a hoax itself. Really a great documentary.
why so unbelievable? (Score:5, Funny)
Alleged Minds (Score:4, Funny)
Who is alleging that these people have minds and what proof do they have! I think NASA should pay someone $15k to prove whether or not these people actually have minds.
Perhaps scientists could use cutting edge technology and the world's most powerful microscope to prove whether or not these people's minds exist.
Slashdot readers want to know!
If I was American... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll leave Bush aside... But have you read up on your Vice President Dick Cheney (exCEO of Halliburton Industried, and oil services company with dealings with Iraq), Secretary of Commerce Don Evans (ex chairman and CEO of Tom Brown Inc, an oil and gas company), Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld (ex board member of the Tribune Company which publishes the Los Angelese Times, Chicago Tribune, NY's Channel 11), Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham (received more from the automotive industry than any other candidate, voted in 2000 to abolish the department he now leads), Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (received paid for trips abroad to promote free trade and $72,000 in campaign contributions from Philip Morris, the tobacco giant), Secretary to the Interior Gale Norton (ex national chairwoman of an "environmental group" funded by Ford Motor Company and BP Amoco, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H Card Jr (ex General Motor's chief lobbyist), National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (served on Chevron's board of directors, has an oil tanker named after her!), Secretary to the Treasury Paul O'Neill (ex. president and CEO of Alcoa - one of the biggest polluters in Texas), Shadow Adviser to the President Kenneth L. Lay (ex Head of Enron...)...
Maybe things were better in 1969. But I don't believe much your Government says these days. Especially about the "war on Iraq" not having anything to do with oil. Does that make me a crazy conspiracy theorist?
Re:If I was American... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be curious to know how specifically the US government benefits from the oil in Iraq after a war. Keep in mind that Saddam (is that his surname?) could very well destroy all of his oil facilities and set all his wells alight if he senses the end is nigh.
Re:If I was American... (Score:4, Insightful)
Iraq has the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia. American oil companies have not had access to this since the late 1980s. They stand to profit enormously from a post-Hussein government friendly to the United States. It would also allow the scuttling of oil deals between Iraq and other countries and reshuffling world petroleum markets in favor of US oil firms.
There is a lot for US oil companies to gain from getting a US friendly regieme into Iraq, and that is exactly what Bush wants to do. They have also been trying to put in place a regieme that will cancel oil agreements Iraq currently has with China, Russia and France. I shouldn't need to point out the links between Bush and his cronies and the oil companies.
You don't have to take my word for it. Spend a few hours reading what the better international press has said about this over the last few months.
it's OK that people ask (Score:2)
More generally, yes, there is a strong current of non-scientific and anti-scientific thought in modern US society. The right answer to that is to patiently explain scientific facts so that people can make up their own minds, and to start at whatever level people need. Science is something that doesn't have to rely on faith, it's something that reasonable people can spend time on and figure out, and make up their own mind about. And if a scientific project (be it the moon landing or some solid state physics experiment) cannot provide enough evidence for its results, well, then people are justified in doubting its validity until the evidence is forthcoming.
On the other hand, telling people that it must be true because they have seen it on TV is the wrong approach. We want people to question things they see in the mass media, because while the moon landing is not a hoax, a lot of other stuff in the mass media is completely fabricated, from television commercials for superior toothpaste to the validity of presidential elections.
Something about this was on Space chan (cdn) today (Score:3, Interesting)
To all the doubters, let's put the issue to rest like this:
The US and USSR were competing neck and neck to get both astronauts into space and then to the moon. Like adolescent schoolboys, they took every opportunity to embarrass their opponent in the space race.
So...
When the US went to the moon, the USSR would've been watching with EVERY intelligence instrument in their posession. Every radio receiver, every telescope, every single spy would've been trained on the mission.
If the US had faked it, you can be sure that while they probably could've got away with fooling the general US public, there's absolutely NO way they could ever fool all of the scientists and analysts of the USSR doing the monitoring.
When the astronauts were transmitting from the moon, it would've been simplicity itself to check the signal source. If the signals were coming from anywhere other than the moon, the USSR would've had it in the press so fast that the ink wouldn't be dry on the page before the western media picked-up on it.
Not to mention every other country on the planet with radio antennas, telescopes, etc...
I'm sure some mental deficients would try and argue that a relay station was set up on the moon... Oh, but wait, that would require "going to the moon to set it up"... Time to just call it quits guys. How about working on conspiracy theories about aliens in area 57 instead? It'll sell better too...
N.
Re:Something about this was on Space chan (cdn) to (Score:4, Insightful)
Your statement is pretty cool. But you're wrong in your assumptions. Conspiracy theorists may tell you that US and USSR made a whole super-conspiracy outta the Space Conquer to convince their dumb citizens that they were pretty cool. They may say that they did this in accordance, no matter the divisions and disagreements. Or they may tell you that US sent retransmitters to Space so that everyone would think they were walking on the Moon.
However these things are just corn seeds in the field The true problem here is not if we have been or not in the Moon. The problem is that we have had a huge debacle from Space Conquer since the 70s. Today, things are so histoircally far from us that we start to doubt if they really have taken place. How many expeditions have happened since then? How many events related to the Moon have happened since the last man quitted it? When the last seismic station turned off in the Moon?
The Moon Conquer was for many people something very SF, even when it was really happening. Now, 30 years later, it goes more than SF. It's mythology, sometimes of the very worst taste. Appolo XIII Holywood mega-picture showed it in all colours. We see there a raw patriotism where astronauts are good husbands and fathers and take a walk to the Moon like into the countryside. The dramatism of the film is artificial and quite theatrical. The whole story goes around on "how good is Earth, home sweet, home and dear bloody family", and doesn't touch a little neither the technicities of the mission nor the real drama of bringing back the station. The film is pure BS. And this and other similar things about Space is what we feed to new generations. That's the Cosmos they see. No wonder that they start to doubt we have been there...
Once I managed to hear something that one guy told me was a fragment from a conversation inside Appolo XIII. It was noisy, scrapped but some moments were clear. It was a cold blooded voice. It was clear that the guy was under extreme stress but he was fighting every second and every detail. No cries, no yellings, no discussions in maximas of Life and Values. Just good English full of technical details and sending Gods and Devils to Hell. That guy knew that he went into a place were frequently one gets one-way tickets. And he was really good on fighting back his return ticket. However, many people don't ever will know what was the real Appolo XIII.
Taking care of various conspiracy arguments (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.ht
It's pretty thorough.
cubic reflector (Score:3, Insightful)
If people really want to worry about govenment conspiracy they should look into the continued broadcasts of Barney The Dinosaur on TV
That reminds me .... (Score:5, Funny)
I think the date was April 1st 1969
radiation (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Why it wouldn't change MY mind IF I doubted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise, it's just like a UFO photo. Someone pops up and says "Here's photographic proof! This picture of [a UFO][spacecraft on the surface of the Moon] was taken by [a Boy Scout leader][European scientists] on [precise time and date] and [experts] say it's authentic." To which I'd say "how do I really know where and how it was taken? Why couldn't this be a picture of [a garbage can lid tossed in the air and deliberately taken out of focus][a cleverly Photoshopped fake?]"
It all depends on whether you believe the [Boy Scout leader][European scientists].
No, it goes further than that. Unless you personally have INTERVIEWED the [Boy Scout leader][European scientists] it depends on whether you believe the REPORTERS...
There are things you know because you've seen them yourself, and there are things you know because you are told them by people you trust. There has to be a chain of trust. If the don't invite representatives of the doubters to eyewitness the procedures used, the final photograph doesn't mean a thing.
One of the aspects of scientific research that deserves to be taught better in the schools involves, not the use of the scientific method, but of the role played by citation and attribution and, in general, scholarship. That's the big difference between a journal article and an article in the popular press.
EVERY statement in the scientific literature can, in principle, be traced back to a specific person with a name and institutional affiliation (which constitutes a usable address), who says "This is what I did and this is what I saw." And you can ask them about it if you doubt it.
It will be very cool to see the pictures when they get them. But unless the doubters are closely involved in the process, there's no reason why it should change their minds.
(Actually, it will be even cooler if they CAN'T get them--which I think is quite possible, the Moon is a big place and the spacecraft are awfully small. Let's say it turns out that they can't. What do you think they will do?)
Gallileo (Score:3, Insightful)
Two diverse groups (Score:3, Insightful)
Those that will believe anything.
Skeptics and the suckers. Jaded and the gullible. Those who refuse to be fooled, and those who will buy anything, no matter how outrageous. I get them on my site all the time. A small group of people, despite the modern technology necessary to even access my website, refuse to believe its possible to control appliances via the computer. And then there are those who try to talk to a slideshow. You can't win.
No matter what you do, no matter how much proof is available, there will always be idiots that believe the moon landings were faked. I call them idiots because their "proof" is based on scientific evidence that is actually proof against them, false implications, or outright lies. And for the most part, they fail to listen to any reason. They're not looking for a debate, they're looking to impose their view on the world, and refuse to accept that others would actually believe that the obvious happened. There are actually people in this world that still believe the Earth is flat. You can try to convince these people, but you're wasting your breath. Just let them enjoy their ignorance. It IS bliss afterall.
-Restil
Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
This wouldn't work. Not only would the local atmospheric disturbance make it impossible to focus on the landing site, but there was evidence that the lower modules were destroyed during take-off. The entire landing sites are now buried in dust, leaving no trace of the landings.
Besides that, the article clearly states that all conspiracy theorists believe that robots were sent instead, because humans could never withstand the radiation and intense vacuum of space. Even if a telescope could be trained on some pile of trash and junk on the moon, it would still be impossible to prove that it was the result of human activity.
Evidence Schmevidence (Score:3, Insightful)
The irrefrickinfutable evidence of the moon landings is the rock samples. They don't have evidence of re-entry, so they aren't meteorites. Chemically, these things just didn't come from earth. They don't have enough water in them. Everything on earth, no matter how dry an environment it comes from, contains a fair amount of water. Even the rocks of the Antarctic Dry Valleys, where there's been no precipitation have some water in hydrated compounds in the rocks. Same for deep-crustal and even mantle rocks brought to the surface by vulcanism.
Fact is, the moon rocks may or may not have come from the moon, but they sure as hell came from somewhere and they didn't enter the earth's atmosphere on their own.
Re:Missing the entire point... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we're not.
By majority of comments posted here are merely to malign or otherwise insult the people who think the event was faked.
That's because you have to be a bloody fool to believe they were faked. Thousands of people were involved in the Apollo landings. You simply cannot maintain a conspiracy with that many peoiple involved. You can stop the debate right there.
I begin to wonder if anyone here even HAS an open mind anymore, or if they've all turned to mindless sheep (obligatory Dilbert reference).
What's the old saying? Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out?
Why would you accept something as rote simply because your self-biased government said so?
This is a strawman fallacy. You assume we haven't analyzed the claims of the hoaxpushers. You assume we have not visited places like www.clavius.org and gotten informed. You should not make such foolish assumptions.
I personally think a healthy dose of skepticism is needed today.
You used the key word yourself: HEALTHY. Believing that the moon landings were some sort of vast and impossible conspiracy is not healthy- it's mental degeneration, and quite often bred from extreme anti-governmental ideology.
It always strikes me as funny how so many people subscribe fully to the moon landing, then turn around and refuse to believe that the Bible is God's Word (or something else that is based wholly on belief).
Good gravy! Where to even begin deconstructing THIS logical fallacy! For one thing, you are assuming the hoax debunkers are in the same set as the Bible thumpers. In my experience these are close to being mutally exclusive sets.
I think it goes hand-in-hand with university level education today. Today's system teaches vocational trades. It no longer teaches people how to think for themselves.
And now were in the Standard Diatribe Against Society zone so common to ideological rants. Wake me when it's over.
Did you know that all doctorates used to be in Philosophy or the art of thinking clearly? It is still called a PhD to this day. Hence, very few people know how to think logically.
Zzzzzzzz...
I am not saying that I know how to think properly either, but at least I know the problem is there.
No, the problem is that people like hoaxfollowers cannot think in terms of discrete events. To them, the government is not to be trusted. Period. They cannot see that the moon landings happened AND still distrust the government on other things. Ideologues like them can rarely even perceive the passage of time. The government is doing dishonest things now, so all government actions throughout history must be the same. It's like Muslims hating modern day Christians for the Crusades. There's no perception of distictness between different points in time. It's all one hazy amorphous mass.
Do you think it's beyond our government to deceive you? Do you think the goverment has nothing to hide?
Another strawman. No, of course not, but claiming the the moon landings happened is not the same as giving the government a pass on all things. It's called analyzing an event based on the relevant evidence, and avoiding the generalized ideological appraoch such as "the gummint done lies sometimes, so they done lied about the moon landings."
The point of this post, this discussion, this conspiracy theory, is to get you to logically and scientifically deduce the truth from the chaff.
Yes, and eventually you reach a point where the truth lies revealed. *You* have to accept that many of us have reached that point.
It is an exercise in skepticism.
So exercise some skepticism in the other direction and admit the hoaxpushers are just trying to sell books and videos, and their foloowers are ignorant. Occam's Razor alone gets you this one.
Don't get angry that someone debates your postion and resort to name-calling, defend it.
It's not anger- it's frustration that people could believe such nonsense, especially people on Slashdot who have access to all the information on the Internet at their fingertips.
Debate is a wonderfull tool for being able to see an issue from all sides, sharpening your mind, and learning something you didn't fully understand before.
You miss the crucial point, though. Many of us have already learned the facts, and arrived at the conclusion that the landings happened. The facts are there, and the claims of the hoaxpushers lie in tattered ruins.
I am merely asking that you accept the possibilities, and not damn them because they are not what you believe.
We damn them because they refuse to accept readily available facts. It's not about belief. This isn't religion. There is no faith in the government. There is, however, solid and endless evidence and epirically proven aspects about how humanity works that makes the vast conspiracy theory (and vast conspiracies in genral) completely unworkable.