I stand rejected dejected corrected.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

This was true of the Lunar Orbiter missions, but was not true of the Apollo missions. The Apollo films were brought back to Earth for processing.

What's the hangup with "RAW" data? The raw data could just as easily be manipulated as the final product. This would do nothing to quell the ignorant rantings of the HBers. FYI, NASA does provided "raw" data for public consumption at the Planetary Data System (PDS) for many missions. The data is usually made available after the principle investigators have had a chance to evaluate them.

NASA is doing just this in 2008 with the launch of Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). This data will also be made available on PDS. Despite what you think it does come down to money and how you prioritize missions based on the budget. The Moon had a great deal of scrutiny during the 1960's culminating with the Apollo landings. During the 70's and 80's there was a great desire to probe other planets and that's where the money went. There is no doubt that proposals were made to go back to the Moon, but they lost out to other missions. In the 90's there was renewed interest in the Moon resulting in the Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions.

Now, with the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE), we have new impetus to study the Moon. The LRO will start off this new exploration.

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

Also really depends on what is mean by high resolution. Clemantine, Smart-1, Lunar Prospector all took high resolution photos, they just didn't take close-ups capable of seeing the lunar equipment (though Clemantine did image the Apollo 15 site which revealed a new crater, possibly created by a comet fragment impact recorded by Apollo 15's ALSEP between Apollo 15 and 16, and a darkened patch exactly where NASA claims Apollo 15 landed.)

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Yup. I tried to find a reference on that proposed "Trailblazer" to find anything that would give a hint on the expected resolution in practice - no luck. I have a hunch that much anything short of millimeter resolution with ideal angle and lighting would simply be dismissed as not good enough by the moon hoaxers. They wouldn't even bother to call it a fake, they'd just say there wasn't enough resolution to make any determination.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

And if you took millimeter resolution photos... (looks around nervously) He Who Shall Not Be Named would show up pointing out the bridges, domes and delta-winged shuttles in the "long-range telescopic views" of pebbles and footprints.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

I think we should, for the simple fact that the fence sitters far outnumber the hoax believers. As I've said before, debunking is not for the believers or the skeptics, it is for the fence-sitters, the teeming masses who may have heard of the hoaxes and wonder: "Is it true?"

As for the "missle-with-a-hologram" 9/11 CT, it just doesn't fly (pun intended). I don't think we can make moving holograms (though I could be wrong - feel free to correct me).

- Maha Vailo

__________________
When you get down to it, Science answers how. Religion answers why. - hippietrekx

The Warp Point, my new geek culture blog.

Yes I can read, no I don't agree. I thought the current thinking was that the Apollo samples came from the Procellarum KREEP Terrane area on the Earth facing side and that the Apollo Highland, Maria model of the surface was out of date.
Pretty pictures? Why so defensive? Pictures from a fixed position on another Orbiting body as well providing real time data on radiation solar wind, you name it.

As for the "missle-with-a-hologram" 9/11 CT, it just doesn't fly (pun intended). I don't think we can make moving holograms (though I could be wrong - feel free to correct me).

Stationary Projected Holograms are still the province of SciFi, let alone animated ones and even more so moving ones.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I thought the current thinking was that the Apollo samples came from the Procellarum KREEP Terrane area on the Earth facing side and that the Apollo Highland, Maria model of the surface was out of date.

It's not a case of current thinking, it's a case of where the sites are, this isn't going to change. However, the very thing you are stating here shows that there has been further exploration. The KREEP area wasn't even known about during Apollo, it was discovered by Lunar Prospector in the 1990's. It was only after that that we were able to start sorting out candidate spots for the where the various Lunarite were ejected.

Pictures from a fixed position on another Orbiting body as well providing real time data on radiation solar wind, you name it.

A lot of scientists would agree with you, but remember, it's not Scientists who are writting the cheques, it's the Politicians and like it or not, they are more interested in their comfy office chairs in Washington than in pretty pictures of the Earth from the moon which cost the taxpayer a billion dollars to get, especially when they could be using that billion dollars to fund a pet project in their own State hence creating jobs and winning more votes next election, rather then letting Lousiana, Florida and Texas steal it all in space dollars. That's the way Politicians think. They don't care about space flights, manned or otherwise, they only care about getting re-elected next time, and spending money on pretty pictures of the moon when we already have a ton of them is not going to win them votes.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I'm one of those taxpayers, though admittedly a weird one who would spend a lot more money on NASA. But given budgetary limitations, I would rather see NASA spend money on new rovers for Mars or a Hubble repair mission, than trying to convince HBers and fence-sitters of what we accomplished almost 30 years ago. The physical evidence we went to the moon is overwhelming and readily available to anyone who is interested. If we return to the moon for further science or as a step-off point to Mars, great, but we don't need to redo what we've already done.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Not to mention huge...

....circa 2008 puts CT hat on....

"So anyway, the images being received right now from the so-called Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter are simply pre-recorded images being beamed down on order from the gubbmint."

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

It seems that we all agree that going back to the moon is a worth while cause for scientific, commercial and military reasons. However, I still wonder why after nearly 45+ years after the first moon landing, we still don't have independent third party evidence that proves or verifies the landing sites themselves.

We know for a fact that we or someone else can easily send a lunar orbiter to take high resolution video or photos of the landing sites, since NASA did this way back in 1967, prior to the landings.

It also seems that every effort from other nations or corporate endeavorers are halted or sweep under the rug soon after we hear about them.

You must ask yourself, WHY?

After reading all the replies to my simple solution, I still haven't received a valid answer that holds water. Therefore, I must conclude that we never did land on the moon. I'm not happy about this result, for I was hoping that someone on here had proof or evidence that may have been overlooked by myself and others that have valid questions about the moon landings.

...

Who has halted the Chinese or sweptthem 'under the rug'? Japan is sending an orbiter, China are going to send a manned mission. They aren't going just to satisfy your request about the authenticity of the landings. Even NASA are going back with a manned mission.

Masses of evidence is available, that you want to close your eyes and ignore it is your problem. It's you making the claim its up to you to show that we never went. tell us what's wrong with the evidence we have?

Russia confirmed that the lunar samples braught back by apollo were the same as their samples returned later, is that '3rd party' enough for you? What about the various organisations and individuals around the world that tracked the missions to the moon and monitored the telemetry are they '3rd party' enough?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

The answer lies in the slight difficulties connected to getting to the moon or close enough to photograph it. The only ones who could do that now are the ones who verified Apollo back then by tracking it, and hence feel no need to once again show what they already know (and in case of the Russians that they lost the race). Are you going to study for months to redo your final exam, just to prove that you went to school in your childhood? Is your neighbour going to go through all nation records looking for evidence of you going to school in your childhood, when he already knows because he was in your class?

Because many groups make wild claims of going to the moon in X years that they simply can't make reality due to budget or practical issues. The halt comes from within the body making the claim or it's direct bosses, not through some US bad guys.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Actually, they did. In 1971 and 1972 the last three Apollo missions carried high-resolution mapping cameras. Due to orbital limitations, they only covered the daylight half of an equatorial band of the moon, which is why the upcoming LRO is needed to widen the coverage. The LMs were photographed on the lunar surface. I don't recall that this has convinced any hoax believers.

Incidentally, LRO will have a resolution of 0.5 metres, so an image it gets of an LM will be only a few pixels across.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

The US government is talking with China now about their planned missions and are trying to work together with them just like Japan and other nations. I wonder why? Read the news.

All the current evidence can be underminded, like the pictures, rocks and even the radio transmissions. The picture negitives taken from the moon show no radiation exposer as one would expect to happen since the camera had no protective lead shielding and was exposed to open space for nearly 10+ days.

Sending a robotic space craft to retrieve rocks is possible and most likely what indeed happened. However, tracking the actual manned space craft to the moon can easliy be reproduced by simply using a non-manned space craft and a relay from planet earth.

See, simple answers to simple questions!

Hummm, finally we're getting to the point of the issue. Could you please provide a link to these pictures of the LM's that were taken by the Apollo missions in 1971 and 1972 as stated by you in your first sentence. Please!

I'll be waiting...

So it was all done with an unmanned craft using a level of robotics - beyond the art even now - to move around on the surface, photograph rocks in situ before collecting them, drill core samples, scoop up loose dust, deploy scientific instruments and return the samples and film to earth. The unmanned craft (who built it? where was it launched from? how has it been kept secret?) split in two, leaving part in orbit while the lander was on the moon, and the orbiter part used very large cameras to photograph parts of the moon at much higher resolution than any other probe, again returning film to earth. It also managed to relay conversations, including references to current events, with a time delay consistent with one party to the conversations being on the moon.

You are really presenting a plausible scenario here.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

Didn't the Russians bring back rock samples from the moon way back in the 1960-70's? thought so!

And yes, using a non-manned space craft with relays is the most plausible scenario.

Try zooming in from this page. Apollo 17 works best, the other sites have a yellow dot drawn in on top of the LM. You could try making a note of the frame numbers for 15 and 16 and googling for better copies.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

The Russians brought back less than a kg of samples from three missions from 1970 to 1976, Apollo brought back 380 kg. The Russians just grabbed what was within reach of the lander.

Read what I said about the conversations. Just using a relay with both ends of the conversation on earth would give twice the time delay.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

Thanks for the link, however these pictures do not convice me at all. You should be able to at least see the tracks of the moon rovers with the picture resolution, but you can't. I guess thats why they had to draw them over the photos.

Thanks again! and if you have other links, please provide them.

Somehow, I'm not in the least surprised. You will find some way to wave any any future pictures too.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

Please state how you determined this. What resolution do you think would be needed to see rover tracks? How would you see them?

See, this is exactly the response I expect - you will make assertions and find fault with any evidence provided. I have no doubt you will quickly dismiss the LRO images when they come.

And as for this:

.

How would you fake the rocks? How would you fake the lunar conditions in the video and photos? How would you fake TV transmissions from the moon? How have you determined the radiation environment would require lead shielding for the cameras?


Why should we bother, since you obviously are going to ignore them?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

So do I take this to mean you think that NASA will make the Chinese go along with the Apollo hoax or they will sabotage their mission?

how will they do this? do you think the Chinese Govt will abandon their lunar mission because NASA ask them to?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

So, I guess your statement about sending robotic space craft to the moon in the 1970's was not possible is false?

The time delay argument is indeed in question, because all transmissions were routed and controlled through NASA and they seem to communicate faster than the speed of light in some instances.

Speed of light = 186,000 miles per second.
Distance to Moon = 251,967 miles from Earth.

251,967 miles (distance to moon from earth) / 186,000 miles per second (speed of light) = 1.35466 second time delay (one way transmission)

Listen to the lunar landing transmissions and see if the astronautes were able to communicate with NASA and vis versa without the 1.35 second time delay.

Read my post again. I didn't say grabbing the nearest scoop of soil was impossible, I said:

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

Do you have an unedited example of this? Remember the delay is only on one side of the conversation: ground speaks - delay - moon speaks - no delay - ground speaks...

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

Sorry, but I can't see the LM's or the tracks from the moon rovers. If you can see them, let us know how you can do it. Why should I say I see them when I can't?

You guys want to talk about science and evidence, but you can't produce any solid proof when it's ask for.