Hello everyone,

This is my first post and I've always been interested in science and space technology. I've been reading and watching a lot of information that claims we never went to the moon. Can you believe that?

Oh well, being an advanced monkey of sorts I have come up with a simple solution to end all this chatter.

I will first point you to a video I found on Google video which was released by the National Archives which shows that NASA sent an satellite to orbit the moon around 1967 to get closeup pictures of the moon to find a nice smooth spot for our astronauts to land.

*Please advance the video to the time code of 21 minutes 15 seconds to verify that they could in fact see a rock measuring 15 feet in diameter.

Ref: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9335412&q=moon

The Solution is:

NASA could simply just resend another moon orbiter with even higher resolution to verify that the lunar landers and space vehicles exist on the surface of the moon. We could learn a lot from these new pictures as well.

The Question is:

If they could send an orbiter way back in 1967 to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface that could identify a rock 15 feet in diameter, then why hasn't NASA done this after the lunar landings in the nearly 35+ years that have passed?

I hope this logic helps to solve the moon hoax problem once and for all.

...

Actually NASA is planning on doing that in a couple of years with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to be launched in 2008.

Good morning (or whatever time of day where you are!), softearth, and welcome.

The lunar landing issue was conclusively solved long ago when Apollo was tracked to, around, on, and back from the Moon, retrieved hundreds of kilograms of differentiated samples, and hand-placed scientific instruments on the Moon. There's no question it happened among anyone who spends enough time learning about it.

But to address your specific question: http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Your question raises another one, though: given the evidence that already exists for Apollo, why should images taken by another spacecraft convince anyone? Any such image will be entirely electronic once it crosses the lens and hits the imaging array. What would stop NASA or whoever took such images from simply creating them in a computer? Why would they be convincing?

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

Oh, and why, as a taxpayer, would I want NASA to spend on the order of a hundred million bucks to satisfy hoax believers?

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

I guess NASA could indeed fake new pictures if they wanted to, but if they share the raw data with colleges, schools, scientist and others from around the world it would eliminate that argument.

As far as sending another orbiter, we could use advanced technologies to scan the moon's surface in more detail. This would be great knowledge and it would help to verify the moon landings so that we can go back and perhaps setup a lunar base. I don't know about you, but I think we should go back and setup a lunar base. This information could be used to make that happen.

They shouldn't and NASA will never convince people like Bart Sibrel. IMO this mission will definately convince fence sitters.

While all the advances in electronics, the internet and the massive amount of data that will be return, it will be a lot harder to claim hoax.

I guess NASA could indeed fake new pictures if they wanted to, but if they share the raw data with colleges, schools, scientist and others from around the world it would eliminate that argument.

As far as sending another orbiter, we could use advanced technologies to scan the moon's surface in more detail. This would be great knowledge and it would help to verify the moon landings so that we can go back and perhaps setup a lunar base. I don't know about you, but I think we should go back and setup a lunar base. This information could be used to make that happen.

Well, that's exactly what Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (see links above) is for - helping identify good targets for the new landings scheduled to begin in 2018.

I'm not sure what you mean by "share the raw data". They did that back in the '60s and '70s, including lunar samples analyzed by scientists around the world.

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

I'm sure that, when we eventually have regularly scheduled flights to the Moon, the few remaining HBs et al, will claim it's all being done on a holodeck. Or maybe even a futuristic animation...



Welcome to the BAUT, softearth. Have fun!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I mean allow scientist from around the world to collect the raw data in real time. No waiting around for NASA's approval like all the other missions. Raw data doesn't need approval, it needs to be shared and studied from all angles.

The raw data from the lunar landings back in the 60's and 70's was not shared in real time. It was filtered through NASA for approval and then released to the public.

How could it be shared in real time back then? There was no internet, and it was film, not digital, it had to be processed.

That depends on what you mean by "raw data". The mission communications and telemetry could be picked up by anyone with the proper antenna and receiving equipment. Most of the voice communication was "in the clear" and could be (and was) heard by many people worldwide, including the Soviet Union and others not under the control of NASA.

Similarly, the lunar samples were shared with any researcher in the world who requested it. You can't get much "rawer" than actual rocks and soils collected on the Moon! Yes, they were distributed by NASA, but quite freely -- and not a single researcher has disputed that the material came from the Moon.

Really, the evidence for the reality of the Apollo missions is overwhelming, so much so that anyone who refuses to accept it is very unlikely to change their mind based on some new photos from another NASA mission.

__________________
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)

And the lunar samples are still available to researchers. Link

Part of the problem is that those today that believe the landings were faked do so because that is what they want to believe. These people will continue to believe what they want no matter what evidence is provided. I'm sure new images will do little to put an end to the moon landing hoax theories.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

I'm sure that, when we eventually have regularly scheduled flights to the Moon, the few remaining HBs et al, will claim it's all being done on a holodeck. Or maybe even a futuristic animation...

That's a good point, considering that there are a few especially cranky conspiracists (such as the author of this page) who claim that the plane that struck WTC 2 was actually a missile with a hologram generator.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Don't forget, they already have an excuse for anything from Apollo that is proven to be on the moon. 'NASA has had 40 years to put it there.'

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Yep, as soon as you show further conclusive proof, the HBs will dismiss it as faked.

An example: 9/11. On a forum, some people (none engineers or similar) were going over the flight recorder data from Flight 93 and saying "look at this!" and saying how it proved that the aircraft was shot down.

An aeronautical engineer with 20 years of experience in data analysis, FDR analysis, flight modelling, etc, pops in and says in no uncertain terms that the data from the FDR is entirely consistant with the offical report.

So that would have to convince them, right?

Nope. Now it's "the data was faked", etc.

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

Actually, the film was processed and scanned to digital form on the orbitor and then sent back to earth via radio transmitions. It's this "RAW" digital information that should have and should be shared with the public and not the end picture(s).

Also, nobody has answered my basic question of "Why hasn't NASA or another space agency ever sent another orbitor to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface since 1967?"

Money

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

Is raw data unavalible or simply only provided if specificly asked for (and not nessicarily for free)? The general public lacks the capability to make use of unprocessed data so making it avalible to them is fairly pointless, and given the large quantaties of data supplying it will have a significant cost.
Most likely because they all have decidedly limited budgets and as high resolution images are already avalible from Apollo obtaining new ones aren't high on the list of things to spend money on.