The Dark Side of the Moon.

[elpuma]

Another good point was made by several posters at the landing site photo article--that back then, during the Cold War, the Russians would have leapt upon any evidence at all that the moon landings had been faked. And we who were alive then would have had to listen to their crows of delight ad nauseum

LilyPat

I disagree. The Russians would have leveraged this info. for some other gain.

And, as far as the pictures of the lunar surface are concerned, they are not very clear. They do not clearly show any marks of visitation or debris...

[marmot]

Nice work Penguini!



Now does anyone have any knowledge as to what sort of cheese the moon is made of?





Gouda perhaps?

[orz]

HEYYYYYYY GUYZ I'M Just

askin'

quesssssstionssssss

It really makes no sense.

Wow I never thought of it that way. You're totally right: your part-wilful ignorance of a really complex and technical area of science and history does magically make any old off the cuff touchy-feely 'common sense' 'explanation' totally valid and worthwhile, however patently illogical and impossible and disproved it might be.

[stickdog99]

....
Do you photograph, dude?
Know anything about optics, resolution?
I guess Ive said all Im gonna say, here.

(If you paid any attention, youd see how amazingly more accurate cameras each generation of orbiters and telescopes have had - and you might notice that the next planned one takes the resolution several times higher too.)

But matters of belief, those are another matter completely. Faith requires no evidence.
You probably wont believe that light spot is where the module landed.

Well, if the economic shitz doesnt totally blow it, maybe theyll launch that orbiter later this year. Then theyll send clear photos of the objects left on the moon, and then you will say that they doctored those photos.

Mm-hmm.

The resolution of civilian satellites is limited to 0.5 meters by US government regulations. Military satellites can resolve down to the centimeter. And these are Earth satellites looking through Earth's atmosphere. The idea that the technology does not exist to photograph the lunar landing sites is ludicrous. We have chosen not to revisit those sites. We have (supposedly) chosen not to send a Moon orbiter in low enough orbit and/or with sufficient resolution to take those shots.

Speaking of faith, who provided photos of Apollo landing sites that show nothing -- in the faith that if only their photographic resolution had been greater these photos would have certainly produced convincing evidence that I would then deny?

[stickdog99]

HEYYYYYYY GUYZ I'M Just

askin'

quesssssstionssssss

It really makes no sense.

Wow I never thought of it that way. You're totally right: your part-wilful ignorance of a really complex and technical area of science and history does magically make any old off the cuff touchy-feely 'common sense' 'explanation' totally valid and worthwhile, however patently illogical and impossible and disproved it might be.

That's right. My asking questions proves that I am willfully ignorant and your not answering them proves your intellectual superiority.

[Penguin]

Stickdog99:
Good points also, I admit that.
And I said the belief thing specifically to leave it ambiguous both ways.
Im not a believer either way - I just wanted to prod you for better reasons (a bastard, aint I? ) Thou I thought you played the same on me, first claiming you cant find photos of the sites, then sticking it to me like that with ->

Your point about military satellite resolution is a good one, and I didnt think of it.

Touchè, my friend!

[marmot]

[OP ED]

The resolution of civilian satellites is limited to 0.5 meters by US government regulations. Military satellites can resolve down to the centimeter. And these are Earth satellites looking through Earth's atmosphere.

indeed. although i think a good case can be made, at least in general, for these regulations. I find the implied assertion that this law exists to cover up a moon hoax to be disingenuous at best.

The idea that the technology does not exist to photograph the lunar landing sites is ludicrous.

indeed. any number of spy planes could nearly take the photos you want.

We have chosen not to revisit those sites. We have (supposedly) chosen not to sent a Moon orbiter in low enough orbit and/or with sufficient resolution to take those shots.

indeed. this isn't really evidence though. There are lots of other places we don't take photos of. Rarely is this used as evidence that those places do not exist or are being avoided deliberately as part of some scheme.

perhaps they do not wish to waste time taking more photos of things they've already spent billions photographing?

perhaps they should reprioritize their missions so they're more in line with your goals?

Speaking of faith, who provided photos of Apollo landing sites that show nothing in the faith that that if only the photographic resolution had been greater these photos would have certainly produced convincing evidence that I would deny?

well there ARE photos of the landing that you have denied, so it does seem like a fairly rational leap of faith at least.

honestly, if you believe that the original NASA photos were faked/doctored and/or whatever, i do not see why the same critiques couldn't easily be made of any potential future photographs.

[elpuma]

....
Do you photograph, dude?
Know anything about optics, resolution?
I guess Ive said all Im gonna say, here.

(If you paid any attention, youd see how amazingly more accurate cameras each generation of orbiters and telescopes have had - and you might notice that the next planned one takes the resolution several times higher too.)

But matters of belief, those are another matter completely. Faith requires no evidence.
You probably wont believe that light spot is where the module landed.

Well, if the economic shitz doesnt totally blow it, maybe theyll launch that orbiter later this year. Then theyll send clear photos of the objects left on the moon, and then you will say that they doctored those photos.

Mm-hmm.

The resolution of civilian satellites is limited to 0.5 meters by US government regulations. Military satellites can resolve down to the centimeter. And these are Earth satellites looking through Earth's atmosphere. The idea that the technology does not exist to photograph the lunar landing sites is ludicrous. We have chosen not to revisit those sites. We have (supposedly) chosen not to sent a Moon orbiter in low enough orbit and/or with sufficient resolution to take those shots.

Speaking of faith, who provided photos of Apollo landing sites that show nothing in the faith that that if only the photographic resolution had been greater these photos would have certainly produced convincing evidence that I would deny?

If I may join in here....

Given all of the technology available, not only to the military, but to industry and private citizen as well, why have no conclusive pictures appeared showing Apollo mission debris on the surface of the moon?

In addition, I'm wondering what the fallout would be if it was proven that the entire moon landing was staged?

[Penguin]

And as most of the pic links I gave earlier, are from European, Indian and Japanese orbiter missions, and not US ones, are they all in on it too? Those pics did show the landing sites, albeit in lower resolution - not showing the craft themselves.

Also, high resolution cameras are more expensive. If the reason for Chandrayaan etc was mostly to chart the moon surface, and its radiance variety, and not look for military targets, why would they pay much more for a higher powered camera, when a lower resolution one would do the job they are looking at doing, just fine?

Cost-effectiveness is much more an issue in civilian research than it is in top-secret military spy sats.

[Penguin]

If I may join in here....

Given all of the technology available, not only to the military, but to industry and private citizen as well, why have no conclusive pictures appeared showing Apollo mission debris on the surface of the moon?

In addition, I'm wondering what the fallout would be if it was proven that the entire moon landing was staged?

That would be a hoot!
Imagine the headlines..
Imagine the credibility boost it would give to ALL other "conspiracy theories", overnight!

[stickdog99]

honestly, if you believe that the original NASA photos were faked/doctored and/or whatever, i do not see why the same critiques couldn't easily be made of any potential future photographs.

But I have never advanced those arguments.

It seems to me most likely that the Moon landings were not faked, but that a subset of the world's population (read: conspiracy mongers) is being encouraged to believe that they were by Murdoch media outlets.

Once again, the evidence to prove/disprove these claims would be very easy to obtain -- if only to honor the most symbolically significant technological achievement in human history (as well as the wonderful, altruistic superpower that managed the feat). So, again, I wonder why no conclusive evidence can supposedly even be attained almost 40 years after these wondrous technological feats supposedly transpired.

[stickdog99]

well there ARE photos of the landing that you have denied, so it does seem like a fairly rational leap of faith at least.

Show us the most convincing one you've seen then.

[marmot]

I'm wondering what the fallout would be if it was proven that the entire moon landing was staged?

Media control. No fallout; or if so, it would be contained, would be an issue of National Security.

If someone, somewhere were to have evidence to prove the moon landing was staged, I suspect only about .0000000002 percent of the world population (outside the inner circles) would ever know about it. I'm not sure any of us in this thread would likely come to know about it. Something like this would never be allowed to gain critical mass, would be cut off at the knees, hacked up into little indecipherable pieces, burned and buried, before it could possibly go viral, before it would give to ALL other 'conspiracy theories' an overnight credibility boost!

[OP ED]

i'd suggest that NASA probably doesn't feel it is required to answer the critiques of self-described conspiracy theorists.

they likely feel that the evidence they've compiled during the original missions was compelling enough.

i mean, honestly, can you imagine a NASA scientist making a case to his boss for multi-billion dollar mission whose SOLE purpose would be to prove that several other missions had actually happened?

How long would he keep his job?