LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites | Hacker News Reader

LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites

nasa.gov

33 pointsdrm23716 comments

Will these images quiet "the moon landings were faked" conspiracy theorists? I doubt it - they will reason if they faked the moon landing, they can easily fake a few digital pictures.

Notice how close Apollo 16 landed to a huge crater. I wonder what kind of resolution the mission planning maps had.

No it won't shut them up. Not when CNN is blathering on their site about the the fake moon landings theories.

Remember when CNN used to be a news network?

Now it's a moving-picture tabloid

When I saw that on CNN's front page this afternoon they lost any remaining shred of journalistic integrity that I had for them. Stuff like that puts them on par with Weekly World News.

I highly doubt it. To a conspiracy theorist any evidence is evidence that they are right.

Sigh. What is really annoying, is that conspiracies really do happen. Things go on all the time that many people would like to know about. Theories abound, and then decades later we find out a lot of it was actually true. ECHELON used to be a "conspiracy theory". MKULTRA. These NSA backdoors all over the place. They were all "whoo conspiracy" until suddenly they weren't.

But there's this certain type of person, the "Conspiracy Theorist" type, who is just an utter idiot, denies all reality, and doggedly defends the biggest, most unbelievable conspiracy they can find, and in the most discreditable manner possible. They are so stupid, obnoxious and loud that they paint the whole idea of "governments doing naughty things in secret" in this ridiculous, indefensible tone. They turn the whole issue into a laughing stock.

Consider these two statements on, say, 9/11. I know we're not talking about that, but it's illustrative of the problem I'm describing:

  A. Elements in the govt know a lot more about 9/11 than has been revealed
  B. The CIA planted explosives in the twin towers and used a missile on the Pentagon

To me, statement A is reasonable. Many people consider the 9/11 commission to have been a complete joke. There are plenty of weird things about the "official" explanation. I personally think there is quite a bit more to the story, I think it's a near certainty that there has been a cover-up of sorts, and I think there's plenty of intelligent people around who have similar ideas.

But you can't even mention them because of these nutcases shouting about B. They take such a ludicrous, extreme position that no-one can differ from the party line at all without risking being tarred with that highly toxic brush. They poison everything.

I'd like to mention, btw, that some people believe that those "truther" types are being deliberately manipulated for the very reason that they attract the spotlight away from some pretty dark places that it's in no-one's interest to light up. Evidence for this theory includes such things as the refusal to release the many videos showing the pentagon impact. I can think of no other reason than to inflame wild speculation. Meanwhile the real questions go un-asked and un-askable.

It's because of this that it pains me so much to see these "Conspiracy Buffs" - these morons, these wilfully ignorant tools spouting this fucking nonsense. And so once again, everything is polarised. Any skepticism of the fairytale means you're a fucking loon. Let's have another A/B:

  A: NASA possesses unreleased photographs of some pretty interesting things
  B: THE MOON LANDINGS ARE FAKE!

One of these statements is acceptable to me. There are plenty of people, usually the type of person entrusted with total control of an extremely expensive aircraft, who say they have seen interesting things in the sky. Some people claim NASA has seen a great many of these interesting things, and unlike your average pilot, has cameras all over the place, so they have pics. Now personally I'm not very convinced of this one, I will need very good evidence, but it's a semi-reasonable thing to say.

The second is just nonsense, easily disproved, and just makes anyone who is even slightly inquisitive "behind the scenes" look like an idiot. Sigh! The dark side clouds everything.

Oh well, I'm not sure what the point of this rant was, besides this: please make an effort to keep a nuanced outlook on "conspiracy theories". There are conspiracies all the time, count on it. Don't just dismiss them all wholesale because a bunch of crazies has latched noisily onto the stupidest ones.

Ok, point well taken.

Let's divide them up in to two groups to be able to tell the difference:

Conspiracy skeptic: Someone who does not take everything the government says for granted and who would like to see evidence rather than be kept in the dark

Conspiracy nutcase: Someone who in spite of all the available evidence sticks to some theory when the time to let it go is long past.

Does that help?

You do realize the WTC complex was shutdown a week before the attacks, all security turned off for about 36 hours and that the security team is headed by Marvin Bush. I don't know about the moon but 9/11 is here on earth and it was literally full of lies and problems of admittance.

Are you aware of the hundreds of thousands of hours of actual research done on this subject to say such a lucidly idiotic statement as what you just said. As if you know anything about what happened. There are thousands of people who have devoted considerable time, people who have lost relatives in the explosions, some who have devoted their lives to the subject, who would contradict you without a doubt. Kurt Sonnenfeld is a good place to start as he was a FEMA agent on on GROUND ZERO when no one else was allowed. Please look into this man and maybe read his book.

'Real questions go unanswered'. Are you joking?

ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS HAVE GONE UNANSWERED. The government has been caught in outright lies since the war started and it has answered none of the questions that literally 1000's of profession aviators, physicists, demolition experts, government officials, and many others have of the 9/1 situation. this list includes very prominent individuals that believe thermite or some like substance was used to melt the steel and turn the concrete into fine dust.

You obviously have a lot more homework to do before you can even consider yourself to be educated on the subject so why not start at

911truth.org

a bit more organized than the moon hoax there my friend.

The moon is one thing because it happened some time ago and there really is no hard truth either way as the controversy and the photos and evidence can be manipulated in many ways. Until we go back there will always be skeptics and for good reason. They are hiding at least something.

But with 9/11 there are hard facts and video footage from every angle here on earth and there is a war going on that is illegal in every way and 9/11 was our obvious way into this wholly illegal atrocity. Good day.

Showed them to a coworker, that was his first response.

I sit among a large group of conspiracy theorists at my work.

The really interesting thing here is that people are now so far removed from what humanity is capable off that they have no choice but to take it as possible that all this was faked.

If they had a good general education and a healthy dose of common sense they could easily figure out for themselves what is possible and what is not.

I attribute this to general education being a lot worse than it was two generations ago.

Sure we have pretty toys, computers and all kinds of media devices. But people in general (not the HN crowd) can't do general arithmetic anymore without a calculator, which gives them a bad intuition about numerical problems and they're more concerned with 'stuff' than with knowledge.

Of course there are exceptions, I'm sure there are plenty of schools that do a great job and that hold the tradition of education high. But the general case has slipped backwards, every school that I have had contact with because of my sons education couldn't hold a candle to the highschool I was in when comparing the level of the knowledge taught in the various classes.

I remember my son coming home and telling me they do this weird thing called 'touch math' here and how the teacher wanted them to use calculators for simple arithmetic questions...

The real question is whether Hoagland and the rest of the face-on-Mars/giant-towers-on-the-moon crowd will say these pictures are really alien structures on the moon that NASA is trying to pass off as the Apollo landing site...

I think the coolest of these is the Apollo 14 image with the footprint trail. Sure, after 30 years we'd expect the landers to still be there, but now we know that the footprints and other scuff marks are still there too. Neat.

I read somewhere that, if humanity died out, after a few million years, all evidence that we existed on earth would be gone, expect the junk we left on the moon.

Can anyone explain this issue (http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/925dl/apollo_landin...) Google moon not matching these images? INACT (I'm not a conspiracy theorist) just curious.

I was really expecting / hoping that they would release high resolution, quality images of these landing sites, particularly Apollo 11.

Don't we have the technology to capture these sites in striking clarity, to finally put to rest the ridiculousness of claims we didn't get there when we did?

From the article:

Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com