As an aside, I'd like to point out that softearth's Reason #3 (military use of the Moon) is not particularly valid. The current strategic consensus is that the Moon is of little military value.

If you give this a moment or two of thought, I think it's pretty obvious why that's true. The Moon is quite a long way from the scene of any military confrontation. Any response to an earthly military action would take many hours to reach the battle from the Moon. It's much too far away to be useful for reconnaisance (as we've seen from the many posts in this thread explaining how difficult it is to image small objects on the Moon from here).

The only region of space that's of interest to military planners now or in the foreseeable future is Low Earth Orbit (for reconnaisance and C-cubed) up to geosynchronous (for communications and weather forecasting).

__________________
Bring back Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Are you sure about that? If NASA has managed to fool scientists worldwide for decades, then they must have a lot of experience in "cooking" the data.
You keep asking for the "raw" data, why? What makes you think that a NASA dedicated to keep the illusion of a fake Apollo program, and wich has spent years and rivers of money faking photos and recordings won't create a nice little fake lump of tapes/punch cards/clay tablets/etc. for you?

Galileo had evidence, In your example I would say Galileo is more like NASA and you are the one scoffing!

Who is supposed to have laughed at him?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

To put an end to films like these that millions of people watch both on TV and the new media, the Internet.

Video Part 1

Video Part 2

But isn't China planning to go the moon and didn't GW Bush say that the USA is going back as well. Why would anyone want to go back to the moon and setup a base of operations? You would think that the USA would have setup a lunar base back in the 70's during the height of the Cold War with Russia or vis versa to gain the ultimate high ground.

You see, it's common sense arguments like this that mystify me when I hear people say that there is no good reason to go back or study the moon. They say that there are more important things to do with NASA's money, like send a spacecraft to Saturn to study one of it's moons. I would think that nation security would be the most important reason of all to setup a lunar base. And if you're gonna do that you will need to study the moon in more detail in order to find the best resources to help sustain it.

...

__________________
-Leading the way to truth, honesty and integrity.

Here's your official Ten Pages are Now Behind Us and We've Gotten Nowhere thread summary:

1. Why haven't any probes to the moon taken pictures of the apollo landing sites?

Actually, they have. Here is one example.

http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/a...ar_lander.html

2. Why can't I see rover tracks in those images?

because the rover's tires are only about 6 inches wide.

3. Why hasn't any probe taken better pictures?

Scientists prioritize the questions they want to ask, and give requirements to engineers to build for them spacecraft that can answer the most important questions. The important science questions have dictated probes that do the opposite of taking super-high resolution images. Instead, the important science questions have dictated probes that can map large areas of the lunar surface.

As those questions are answered, scientists move on to other questions. Eventually, they will coincidentally get high resolution images of landing sites, however, it will be a coincidence. No scientist is going to waste precious and scarce research money on crazy hoax claims.

4. Wont the LRO in 2008 get better pictures?

Yes, and it will do so for the reasons outlined above - science and exploration. These are the same reasons that every other probe has been sent to the moon. Coincidentally, the LRO may get better pictures of the apollo landing sites. That's not its mission, but that's a happy coincidence.

5. Why did the 1967 probe get such good pictures?

Because that was the science objective of those probes. (actually, it'd be more accurate to say it was an engineering objective). In the 1970's, '80s, and '90s, scientists had different objectives and so built different probes.

The ESA can build probes as well, for example SMART-1. But like NASA, their science objectives are such that they don't obtain super high res images. They are doing science, not placating irrational hoax believers.

Japan can also build probes, for example LUNAR-A and SELENE. And China can build probes and Russia can build them. You get the idea. Every probe's capability is determined by the science objectives of the mission.

6. Why doesn't NASA allow independent verification of its data?

They do. Thousands of scientist and engineers have independently verified apollo. For future missions, you can buy or build a satellite dish and listen in on NASA space probes. Nothing is being hidden from you.

Those people are a minority. If the evidence from Apollo itself isn't enough for them, then what difference would a spy sattilite eyeing the left over hardware prove to the hard core HBers?

There's no need to spend millions just to convince HBers of the moon landings.
Let them believe what they want; it won't effect reality.


We would have, if it wasn't for the budget cutbacks (of course, it was meant as a scientific outpost).
I believe someone pointed out how impractical a military moon base would be anyway. And in the current world situation, it's definately not an aid.

Now, to set up a base that is meant to study lunar reasources for use on Earth, that's a different matter.

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Please use some "common sense arguements" to explain how having a base of any kind on the moon would be a straegic advantage in terms of national security.

As was mentioned above, it's not like there would an instant attack capability. As a first strike tool it would have much less of a surprise advantage than an Earth launch.

There really isn't a viable military use fo rht Moon, until we get the death ray from from the second Austin Powers movie working.

As for building a military facility in the 70s... Wow, after the fuss th e US made about Russia having missiles in Cuba a few years before, you really think they'd be okay with a steady convoy of arms going into space. And no, they couldn't hide those transports. That would be a LOT of stuff headed up.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Ooo! I want that!

But I can't imagine how much it might cost.

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

How would a moon base contribute to national security? But rest assured, if the Chinese ever manage to conjure up one, I'm sure the US won't be far behind.

As for why didn't they establish a moon base during the cold war? Well, the US went to the Moon, the Soviets didn't, couldn't. There was no need, and thus, no money.

Btw, here's the official LRO site:
http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/

After the LRO, Nasa will launch approx. one mission per a year until the manned one in 2020.

If only we had a lunar base - then 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Hey look, I'm all in favor of manned spaceflight. Tax me more - please - I'll be happy to pay for it. But this sidesteps the fundamental issue: Apollo happened. There is more evidence for Apollo landing on the moon than for Titanic hitting an iceberg. Apollo happened. It was independently verified by the smartest people on the planet.

You are demanding ridiculous and useless "extra proof." And what happens if we spend millions of dollars to make you happy? You or someone else will just demand more. "I want even closer pictures." "I want images from another angle." "I want infrared images." "I want a robotic lander to land right next to the LM base."

It'll never stop. So what's the point? Don't waste my money on unreasonable people like Softearth. Do science. Do exploration. The mountains and mountains of data and photos and rocks and hardware from apollo are more than enough evidence to convince any reasonable person. Going out of your way to find more is a giant waste of money, accomplishes nothing, and takes money from actual science missions.

I'll take no assurances from you since you haven't demonstrated any ability to understand what has been explained to you repeatedly in this thread.

The Date/Time could be as easily faked on the probe as on the ground. This doesn't help you at all.

X,Y,Z coordinates? Do you know what you're talking about? Do you know how to locate a satellite and then track it?

They could be faked on the probe as well. How would you know the difference?

Calculate what? Be specific. What exactly are you going to calculate to authenticate the image?

Cross reference them to what? Be specific. You've done a lot of handwaving but haven't shown that you have any clue on how you would tell a fake image from an authentic one.

Where are the details?

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

One of the reasons for going back tothe moon is to develop the techniques and technologies needed for a Mars mission. Nowhere has anyone apart from you claimed that there is no reason to go back to the moon. What has been said is there is no reason to go back just to take pictures to satisfy you.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

X,Y,Z coordinates...what do you mean by this? Do you know how to find objects on space from the Earth's surface? Do you know the REAL coordinate system used?
Just curious.

Don't forget about the millions of people who are also not convinced that we sent men to the moon during the Apollo missions. BTW, the number of people viewing the evidence of a hoax is growing daily at an exponential rate, thanks in part to Google video.

It's been 35+ years since man supposedly walked on the moon and we still don't have any independent evidence to prove it. NONE!

And when someone suggest a simple, cost effective way to prove the landings indeed took place (among other reasons) using technology that was available in the 1960's, you say it's not warranted because we have enough evidence provided by NASA to satisfy everyone, but it seems that you're incorrect in your assessment by evidence of the video itself.

...

__________________
-Leading the way to truth, honesty and integrity.

Cost effective. Uh huh.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

No it isn't possible.

There is no way a remote craft could do what you say.

Ecliptic Coordinates

__________________
-Leading the way to truth, honesty and integrity.

We like our data raw and the....