Moon Hoax - A Simple Solution

[R.A.F.]

Perhaps you should get your father to explain my answer to you. :think:

...and for those of us keeping score, that would be the 3rd time softearth has ignored/refused to answer Frantic Freddie's question...

[sts60]

a few people seem to want to ignore logic and basic scientific protocols when it comes to sourcing and validating raw data for independent review and conclusion.

Repeating something wrong doesn't make it more accurate. This has alredy been refuted, for instance by tofu here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=838082&postcount=217).

You have also been asked to explain what credentials you have to determine what constitute "scientific protocols". We're still waiting for an answer.

And I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=838062&postcount=215).

And we're still waiting to hear how exactly robotic flights could have returned 380 kg of differentiated samples, including large intact rocks and core samples, when the best technology of the day could only return a few ounces of scraped-up topsoil. And where your evidence is for the massive sample-return program you allege.

And we're still waiting for you to explain how unmanned relays could have been flown to, from, and around the Moon, and landed on the Moon, remotely, but it was impossible to land vehicles which had pilots to make the job easier. Or how it was possible to use these relays without screwing up the time intervals.

And we're still waiting to hear how long communication sequences could have been tracked live in Earth orbit when the signals were coming from the direction of the Moon, and when there was no continuous communication capability in Earth orbit.

And we're still waiting to hear how long sequences in 1/6G and vacuum could have been faked.

And we're still waiting to hear how many tens of thousands of potential whistleblowers across the world were duped or silenced, not only at the time but for the rest of their lives, even to deathbed or posthumous confessions via children or grandchildren.

And we're still waiting to hear how the international scientific community was fooled not only at the time but for the future given the inevitable advance of scientific knowledge.

And we're still waiting for you to identify any real problem with any of the still images or motion sequences.

And - well, you get the idea.

[Dave J]

Softearth,
If the missions didn't go to the Moon, where did they go? Did they remain in low Earth orbit?
Been goung through this over at the LC forum...how was a groundsite able to maintain continuous contact (telemetry/comms) with the spacecraft for hours at a time uninterrupted id they were in LEO? A "relay" arrangement wouldn't do it with the spacecraft orbiting Earth every 90 minutes.
This issue will grind your theory to a halt.

[captain swoop]

wow, is this still going on? It's like driving past a crash on the Motorway, I can't help stopping to look.!

[PhantomWolf]

...and for those of us keeping score, that would be the 3rd time softearth has ignored/refused to answer Frantic Freddie's question...

Well at least he answers his posts, I can't even get that.

[softearth]

Answer: Why should they?

The last area on the moon that there is any identifiable scientific benefit to be had from a high-detail scan is the areas they've already been to.

In other words, the only arguable reason for NASA to do what you're suggesting would be to pander to the demands of HBs

Now...that leads to:

Question:

What does NASA stand to gain from pandering to the demands of HBs?

Answer this one, and your own question is once again relevant.
Alternately, show why there is a another reason why NASA should do this other than pandering to HBs and your question is again relevant.

You have got to be kidding me! :naughty: Are you trying to make us believe that NASA has discovered everything they need to know about the moon from the Apollo missions? Give us a break! :sick:

They're three main reason for going back to the moon:

1) Science - Better understanding our universe and how it formed.

2) Commercial - Rare materials, Tourist industry.

3) Military - Take the high ground, this is why China and the USA are currently planning to go back soon.

Now then, you must ask yourself, why hasn't NASA or any other space agency ever taken photos that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Lunar Modules do in fact exist on the surface of the moon. :question:

NASA was able to send a Lunar orbiter way back in 1967 to take high resolution pictures of the moon that could show a 15 foot rock and it's tracks from rolling down a hill, but none after the landings! This seems very suspicious to me any many others since I've already pointed out why we should go back to the moon. :confused: Reference my first question to this board.

The bottom line is that nobody here or at NASA can give a good reason for this lack of evidence in over 35+ years. Instead we get people on here saying there is no reason to study or go back to the moon. Yeah Right! :boohoo:

It seems that the only course of action to resolve this mystery is to make available the raw data from the next Lunar orbiter schedule for launch in 2008. Give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter and I will be satisfied. Until then, this is all just a bunch of hot air coming from angry monkeys reading from the holy script. :clap:

...

[Gillianren]

...and for those of us keeping score, that would be the 3rd time softearth has ignored/refused to answer Frantic Freddie's question...

Well at least he answers his posts, I can't even get that.

Ditto.

[softearth]

Ditto.

I've already answered his question :wall: , I can't help that you and others can't seem to understand it. Again, I'm going through the transmissions now, and I'm only looking for responses from the Apollo modules to Houston that are faster than 1.35 seconds. Get a clue :exclaim:

[Van Rijn]

Now then, you must ask yourself, why hasn't NASA or any other space agency ever taken photos that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Lunar Modules do in fact exist on the surface of the moon. :question:


Speaking of counts, how many times have we answered this one?




NASA was able to send a Lunar orbiter way back in 1967 to take high resolution pictures of the moon that could show a 15 foot rock and it's tracks from rolling down a hill, but none after the landings!


Good point, since we remember all those videos of astronauts rolling 15 foot rooks around the lunar landscape.



It seems that the only course of action to resolve this mystery is to make available the raw data from the next Lunar orbiter schedule for launch in 2008. Give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter and I will be satisfied.

Why don't you Ask NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/ask_nasa_form.html) what kind of equipment and software you would need to pick up and process the data stream from the LRO? If you have a few million dollars lying around, you just might be able to put something together, so I say, go for it!

[pzkpfw]

You have got to be kidding me! Are you trying to make us believe that NASA has discovered everything they need to know about the moon from the Apollo missions? Give us a break!

That's not what is being said, at all.


They're three main reason for going back to the moon:

1) Science - Better understanding our universe and how it formed.

2) Commercial - Rare materials, Tourist industry.

3) Military - Take the high ground, this is why China and the USA are currently planning to go back soon.


Sure, there are reasons to go back - NASA is planning for it right now!

(Stepping stone to Mars is actually one of the bigger current reasons, I think).




Now then, you must ask yourself, why hasn't NASA or any other space agency ever taken photos that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Lunar Modules do in fact exist on the surface of the moon.

You missed the point.

Which is: Why?




NASA was able to send a Lunar orbiter way back in 1967 to take high resolution pictures of the moon that could show a 15 foot rock and it's tracks from rolling down a hill, but none after the landings!


Not doing something is very different to not being able to.

NASA could, for example, send rovers just like what are on Mars right now, to the moon - even land them near the leftovers of Apollo missions.

But why? Who would pay for this wasted mission?



This seems very suspicious to me any many others since I've already pointed out why we should go back to the moon. Reference my first question to this board.


Your own three reasons to go back to the moon don't include prooving the earlier missions.

Nor should they.



The bottom line is that nobody here or at NASA can give a good reason for this lack of evidence in over 35+ years.

What you ignore is your problem. You've failed to show why they should.




Instead we get people on here saying there is no reason to study or go back to the moon. Yeah Right!

Who said that?



It seems that the only course of action to resolve this mystery is to make available the raw data from the next Lunar orbiter schedule for launch in 2008. Give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter and I will be satisfied. Until then, this is all just a bunch of hot air coming from angry monkeys reading from the holy script.

Fair enough. Maybe.

But there will still be people who find a reason to think it hoaxed or faked.

By your "only course" and "...I will be satisfied" emotive language, however, you show that you still want to hold NASA accountable to your own perceptions of what is correct.

Why should they care what a few HB's think?

Have you yet prooven that the landings could not have been made?

[softearth]

That's not what is being said, at all.

Sure, there are reasons to go back - NASA is planning for it right now!

(Stepping stone to Mars is actually one of the bigger current reasons, I think).
I'm glad you agree on this point. There is hope for you.

You missed the point.

Which is: Why?
For the three reasons I gave you. Is this double talk or what?

Not doing something is very different to not being able to.
Doing nothing is correct, that's what makes it so suspicious.

NASA could, for example, send rovers just like what are on Mars right now, to the moon - even land them near the leftovers of Apollo missions.
But why? Who would pay for this wasted mission?
For the same three reasons I gave you. Yep, it's double talk!

Your own three reasons to go back to the moon don't include prooving the earlier missions.
Nor should they.

I agree, but you must admit it that it would have provided a chance to photo the landers to quell the HB's.

What you ignore is your problem. You've failed to show why they should.
Science, Commercial and Military reasons as stated. Triple talk anyone?


Who said that?
Just about everyone here.


Fair enough. Maybe.
You bet it is.

But there will still be people who find a reason to think it hoaxed or faked.
Until NASA honors basic scientific protocols to guarantee independent study and review.

By your "only course" and "...I will be satisfied" emotive language, however, you show that you still want to hold NASA accountable to your own perceptions of what is correct.
Employing basic scientific protocols is not my perception, but a world standard of practice.

Why should they care what a few HB's think?
They don't, because most people don't have a clue or care. Besides, most people believe everthing they're told. ie: The World is Flat!

Have you yet prooven that the landings could not have been made?
And nobody here or at NASA has proven to me that we did land men on the moon.



...

[Van Rijn]

.
Who said that?
Just about everyone here.


This is in reference to your statement:


Instead we get people on here saying there is no reason to study or go back to the moon. Yeah Right!

Please give specific references with links. I do not recall anyone saying such a thing. I certainly didn't.



Fair enough. Maybe.
You bet it is.

This is in reference to:


It seems that the only course of action to resolve this mystery is to make available the raw data from the next Lunar orbiter schedule for launch in 2008. Give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter and I will be satisfied. Until then, this is all just a bunch of hot air coming from angry monkeys reading from the holy script.

So, are you going to contact NASA to ask what equipment and software would be required to receive and decode the LRO data stream?

[Tog]

Softearth, Your original question has been answered many times over. You are simply refusing to accept the answer. This is not a fault of science, or NASA. THis is your own prsonal hang up with what you believe to be true being at odds with that vast amount of evidence that exists.

Why has no one gone back to re-examine the landings? Becasue there is enough evidence for the vast majority of the world, particularly those with the education, background, and training to be satisfied that it happened. There is no one alive today that remembers the US Civil War actually happening. Anyone that knows anything about it read about it, or saw some historical film or program. Some have stories handed down by their grandparents or great grandparents. But no one is seriously disputing that that war happened. There are very few pictures of it. Those that do exist are mainly protraits. THere are no "action shots". Why is that?

In 1967 NASA sent a high res imager to take pictures of proposed landing sites. You seem to believe this one. In one of these pictures there is an image of a 15 foot rock, with the trail it left as it rolled. That's a 15 foot wide trail. You compare this with the picture taken by A17 of the lander, which, truth be told, I would not have recognized either, and find that it does not meet your expectations. The tracks from the Rovers were only about 4 to 6 inches wide. It doesn't matter if they were 900 miles long, they are only 4 inches wide. Compared with the fact that the tire were really wire mesh which allowed the talc like soil to fall in and back out of them meant that they didn't really leave the same kind of tracks you'd expect to see anyway. As for size and resolution, if you had a bot of thread 100 yards long, would it show up in a picture fom 100 yards away?

You ask why theye didn't send an imager back since then? How about a sequence of events:

67- surveyor looks for landing sites.
67 to 69- pictures are examined closely and sites are chosen.
69 to 71 people land on the moon.

Comapre this to your vacation. You decide to go to someplace. You look up ow to get there and where to stay. You arrive, take pictures, bring home souvenirs. Why would you feel the need to go back to find some other shred of proof you were there just becasue the cat lady that lives on the corner swears you never left home?

No, NASA didn't find out everything they wanted about the moon on Apollo. They found out what they wanted to at the time. A big part of that was that they beat the Soviets to it. As the misions became more common, the public lost interest. Decisions were made to cut funding and start on the Shuttle. The shuttle can't go to the Moon. It's a pick up truck. Apollo was a high performace sports car. They are two different things completely. Now that the focus has shifted to exploration of other worlds again, they are planning to go back. It has nothing to do with proving they were there before, though they will probably take some shots of at least one landing site to say "there, now shut up".

Will you be able to get that transmission of the "raw data". Yep. Just as many others have said. Will you be able to translate it into a useable picture? Probably not. That's what raw data is. If you were given a 32 bit color scan of a 1024x768 pixel picture as binary code it wouldn't look any different to you than a text work. You need the tools to convert it into a useable image. Data transmission is not like the satellite e-mailing a jpg photo to NASA.

You complain that NASA gets first crack at the data, and imply that this is not good science. It's their dime, thier equipment, and their people. Does it really seem odd that they would have the first look at it. Everything about Apollo has been made public to the point none of it is even copyrighted. Try and find any report from CERN that wasn't released by them. Or the ESA. Or the Russian Spance Ministry. The people that conduct the experiments see the results first. If they release everything for peer review, and there are no discrepancies or questions, it passes. Apollo has been peer reviewed for 35 years. No one credible has an issue with it. Is it your opinion that NASA was unable to send people to the Moon, but still pull off such a a perfect hoax that no science body in 35 years has found a flaw in it?

Could some of the evidence have been faked? Yes, possibly. THe audio would have been the easiest. The radio transmissions? Yeah, maybe. There is still the problem of orbiting something around the Moon that keeps it in view of the Earth all the time though. The pictures? Well there are something like 30,000 of them. They would all have to be faked using 1960 technology, so I'll say no on that one. The video? No way. There is no way to simulate both the 1/6 gravity and the depth of field. The moon rocks? Nope. SUre the SOviets came back with a few handfuls of topsoil and a bit of gravel. Apollo came back with 380 kg, over 800 pounds of samples, some of whice were core samples. It occurs to me that that term may not be known. A core sample, isn't a rock. It's a solid cynider of rock, 8 feet long in his case, that was cut out of the ground, placed in a bag and brought back intact. You suggest that we had a robot that could to that at the time. We don't have one that can do it now. If you think there is, please show us.

So far, you have made a number of claims, and have so far failed to actually provide any support of them. You ask for evidence of the Moon Landings, yet you deny the entire public record. You demand independant thrid party examination of the evidence, yet you ignore the fact that the Soviets AND China acknowledged that it happened just as presented. THey were not independant parties, they were hostile nations as far as the vast majority of politics were concerned.

Please, if you have anything solid, present it, but of all you have is more of the same let us know so we can move on to something better.

[Nicolas]

why hasn't NASA or any other space agency ever taken photos that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Lunar Modules do in fact exist on the surface of the moon.

Just how much shadow of doubt do you think NASA has over whether or not a project they spent something like a decade on happened or not?

[Gillianren]

I've already answered his question :wall: , I can't help that you and others can't seem to understand it. Again, I'm going through the transmissions now, and I'm only looking for responses from the Apollo modules to Houston that are faster than 1.35 seconds. Get a clue :exclaim:

"Ditto" meant "you haven't answered mine" in that instance. Which, you know, you haven't. I admit I asked you to ask yourself some of them, but the answers were directly relevant, and you don't seem to have asked them.

[captain swoop]

I hope everyone realises that the extreme Ct ers will say exactly the same thing about the next NASA moon landings. I would bet that they believe the Chinese mission is real though.

[V-GER]

I would bet that they believe the Chinese mission is real though.

Yes I bet they think it's...


-Leading the way to truth, honesty and integrity.

[softearth]

Softearth, Your original question has been answered many times over. You are simply refusing to accept the answer. This is not a fault of science, or NASA. THis is your own prsonal hang up with what you believe to be true being at odds with that vast amount of evidence that exists.

It's not my fault that people will accept any evidence that hasn't been verified by independent third parties for review and conclusion. All the evidence you speak of can be duplicated of faked with little effort, but that's not the point I'm trying to make here. My point is that there has never been any independent evidence to validate NASA claims by simply showing photos of the lunar landing sites from a lunar orbiter either from NASA or another space agency. Not one single picture in the past 35 years, even though several other orbiters have been sent to the moon since then, the camera's on board didn't have enough resolution to spot the landers, rovers and/or other evidence. NASA could send a orbiter in 1967 with enough resolution, but no one else can since then! How convenient for NASA, wouldn't you say?


Why has no one gone back to re-examine the landings? Becasue there is enough evidence for the vast majority of the world, particularly those with the education, background, and training to be satisfied that it happened. There is no one alive today that remembers the US Civil War actually happening. Anyone that knows anything about it read about it, or saw some historical film or program. Some have stories handed down by their grandparents or great grandparents. But no one is seriously disputing that that war happened. There are very few pictures of it. Those that do exist are mainly protraits. THere are no "action shots". Why is that?

People believe in the Civil war because photos were taken from hundreds of photographers on both sides of the war. Besides, you can find evidence of the war by going to Gettysburg and finding bullets and other items with a $100 metal detector. Again, independent research and conclusion are supported here, but not with the moon landings. Thank you for helping me make my point on this issue.


In 1967 NASA sent a high res imager to take pictures of proposed landing sites. You seem to believe this one. In one of these pictures there is an image of a 15 foot rock, with the trail it left as it rolled. That's a 15 foot wide trail. You compare this with the picture taken by A17 of the lander, which, truth be told, I would not have recognized either, and find that it does not meet your expectations. The tracks from the Rovers were only about 4 to 6 inches wide. It doesn't matter if they were 900 miles long, they are only 4 inches wide. Compared with the fact that the tire were really wire mesh which allowed the talc like soil to fall in and back out of them meant that they didn't really leave the same kind of tracks you'd expect to see anyway. As for size and resolution, if you had a bot of thread 100 yards long, would it show up in a picture fom 100 yards away?

For arguments sake, I will concede that the rover tracks may not be visible (depending on the cameras resolution), but there is no excuse for not seeing the lunar landers and the rovers with the same technology available way back in 1967. I repeat, NO EXCUSE!



You ask why theye didn't send an imager back since then? How about a sequence of events:

67- surveyor looks for landing sites.
67 to 69- pictures are examined closely and sites are chosen.
69 to 71 people land on the moon.


1967 – NASA sends a lunar obiter to the moon to find landing sites for the Apollo missions. The technology used was able to spot 15 foot rocks with ease. I'm wonder if smaller rocks are also visible, perhaps I'll review that video again to see if any rocks smaller than 15 feet are indeed visible.

1969 to 1971 – NASA says it landed people on the moon and stopped sending people back for some odd reason. You would think at the height of the Cold War with Russia we would establish a moon base to take the high ground for national security reasons at minimum. Oh yeah, all the Apollo Command Modules that flew overhead never had any chance to take pictures of the landers, except for Apollo 17 mission, which unfortunately shows nothing you can distinguish as a lunar lander and/or rover.


Comapre this to your vacation. You decide to go to someplace. You look up ow to get there and where to stay. You arrive, take pictures, bring home souvenirs. Why would you feel the need to go back to find some other shred of proof you were there just becasue the cat lady that lives on the corner swears you never left home?

I'm sure if the cat woman wanted to, she could find the evidence to verify if they went on their vacation or not, so the point you make here is weak at best since I've already answered a similar question in reference to the Civil war.


No, NASA didn't find out everything they wanted about the moon on Apollo. They found out what they wanted to at the time. A big part of that was that they beat the Soviets to it. As the misions became more common, the public lost interest. Decisions were made to cut funding and start on the Shuttle. The shuttle can't go to the Moon. It's a pick up truck. Apollo was a high performace sports car. They are two different things completely. Now that the focus has shifted to exploration of other worlds again, they are planning to go back. It has nothing to do with proving they were there before, though they will probably take some shots of at least one landing site to say "there, now shut up".

This is the whole point of my argument! Show me proof that can be independently verified using basic scientific protocols and I will shut up. As I have stated time and time again, the easiest way to do this is with a lunar orbiter with a high resolution camera to show the landing sites. Maybe NASA has a spare one left over from 1967? Until then, my case of finding the truth still stands!


Will you be able to get that transmission of the "raw data". Yep. Just as many others have said. Will you be able to translate it into a useable picture? Probably not. That's what raw data is. If you were given a 32 bit color scan of a 1024x768 pixel picture as binary code it wouldn't look any different to you than a text work. You need the tools to convert it into a useable image. Data transmission is not like the satellite e-mailing a jpg photo to NASA.

Are you saying that nobody other than NASA can decode the radio signals? Is this a challenge? I've had the pleasure of working with some of the best programmers in the world and I can assure you that others besides NASA can handle the task. I would love for NASA to explain why other scientist don't have the knowledge and/or equipment to receive and process to data being sent back. Of course, NASA would have to make available the algorithms and transmission protocols used, but that's a small issue that most programmers deal with on a daily bases.


You complain that NASA gets first crack at the data, and imply that this is not good science. It's their dime, thier equipment, and their people. Does it really seem odd that they would have the first look at it. Everything about Apollo has been made public to the point none of it is even copyrighted. Try and find any report from CERN that wasn't released by them. Or the ESA. Or the Russian Spance Ministry. The people that conduct the experiments see the results first. If they release everything for peer review, and there are no discrepancies or questions, it passes. Apollo has been peer reviewed for 35 years. No one credible has an issue with it. Is it your opinion that NASA was unable to send people to the Moon, but still pull off such a a perfect hoax that no science body in 35 years has found a flaw in it?

It is not NASA's dime, it is the US taxpayers dime! And NO, it is not good science to comb over the raw data before others can review it. And NO, NASA doesn't make all the raw data available, they only release what they approve.

Example: The original tapes and footage from some of the Apollo missions has never been released and now they apparently have conveniently lost or misplaced some of it.

Many scientist and ordinary people from around the world have their doubts about the Apollo missions since there has not been any independent evidence that supports the official story.


Could some of the evidence have been faked? Yes, possibly. THe audio would have been the easiest. The radio transmissions? Yeah, maybe. There is still the problem of orbiting something around the Moon that keeps it in view of the Earth all the time though. The pictures? Well there are something like 30,000 of them. They would all have to be faked using 1960 technology, so I'll say no on that one. The video? No way. There is no way to simulate both the 1/6 gravity and the depth of field. The moon rocks? Nope. SUre the SOviets came back with a few handfuls of topsoil and a bit of gravel. Apollo came back with 380 kg, over 800 pounds of samples, some of whice were core samples. It occurs to me that that term may not be known. A core sample, isn't a rock. It's a solid cynider of rock, 8 feet long in his case, that was cut out of the ground, placed in a bag and brought back intact. You suggest that we had a robot that could to that at the time. We don't have one that can do it now. If you think there is, please show us.

Nice try, but I'm not going to get into these issues, because many others have already done so with great success. I'm sticking to my point of having no independent verification showing the lunar modules and rovers from a lunar orbiter in the past 35 years.


So far, you have made a number of claims, and have so far failed to actually provide any support of them. You ask for evidence of the Moon Landings, yet you deny the entire public record. You demand independant thrid party examination of the evidence, yet you ignore the fact that the Soviets AND China acknowledged that it happened just as presented. THey were not independant parties, they were hostile nations as far as the vast majority of politics were concerned.

I can't speak for Russia or China, but I think it's very interesting that China is planning missions to the moon in the coming years. Who knows what they will find out.


Please, if you have anything solid, present it, but of all you have is more of the same let us know so we can move on to something better.

The only thing I have as solid evidence is that there is no photos showing lunar modules or rovers on the surface of the moon. We know that NASA could send an lunar orbiter to take high resolution pictures of the moon way back in 1967, but neither NASA or any other space agency has done so in the past 35 years. That my friend is an undisputed fact accepted by everyone including yourself. :razz:

[Nicolas]

My point is that there has never been any independent evidence to validate NASA claims by simply showing photos of the lunar landing sites from a lunar orbiter either from NASA or another space agency. Not one single picture in the past 35 years, even though several other orbiters have been sent to the moon since then, the camera's on board didn't have enough resolution to spot the landers, rovers and/or other evidence. NASA could send a orbiter in 1967 with enough resolution, but no one else can since then! How convenient for NASA, wouldn't you say?
Round, round, roundabout and ooooover again...

There are no other pics becasue nobody sent a craft with high enough resolution, because there was no need for another craft with high enough resolution that justified the costs. There has been a lot of third party investigation and conclusions (especially the rocks, but also the reflectors, the tracking, other moon craft that showed the same lunar topology), but you ask for the evidence that has not been given. If they do send a high res orbiter, nobody has landed next to the old landers. If they land next to the old landers, nobody has determined their age. If their age is determined, nobody checked whether it is only the material age or the actual construction age. If they determined that, nobody checked how long they've been on the moon. etcetc. One can always keep asking for the evidence that has not been given.

First show us a problem with the evidence -including the one chekced by third parties- that has been given. Simply "it can be faked" is too easy. It doesn't matter that it can be faked. The question is, HAS it been faked?

[gwiz]

The only thing I have as solid evidence is that there is no photos showing lunar modules or rovers on the surface of the moon. We know that NASA could send an lunar orbiter to take high resolution pictures of the moon way back in 1967, but neither NASA or any other space agency has done so in the past 35 years. That my friend is an undisputed fact accepted by everyone including yourself.

We pointed you to photos of three of the LMs on the lunar surface taken in 1971-2, which did not impress you. The resolution is similar to the 1966-8 Lunar Orbiters. If you don't believe me, go back to this site (http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/landing_sites.html) and check the picture of the Apollo 12 site taken from a Lunar Orbiter. The Surveyor 3 lander is visible, but only as a bright spot with a shadow, just like the LMs in the later Apollo panoramic camera photos. The LRO which will map the entire moon starting in 2008 will not have much better resolution. I expect in the next few months we will get MRO pictures of the Vikings and other landers on Mars. This will give you an idea of what to expect from LRO. It will no doubt be as unimpressive to you as the Apollo LM pictures. Face it, the only detailed pictures of Apollo hardware on the moon we are ever likely to see are the ones taken by the astronauts on the surface.

You are never going to be satisfied, your beliefs are unfalsiable and thus by scientific standards irrational.

[softearth]

Round, round, roundabout and ooooover again...

There are no other pics becasue nobody sent a craft with high enough resolution, because there was no need for another craft with high enough resolution that justified the costs. There has been a lot of third party investigation and conclusions (especially the rocks, but also the reflectors, the tracking, other moon craft that showed the same lunar topology), but you ask for the evidence that has not been given. If they do send a high res orbiter, nobody has landed next to the old landers. If they land next to the old landers, nobody has determined their age. If their age is determined, nobody checked whether it is only the material age or the actual construction age. If they determined that, nobody checked how long they've been on the moon. etcetc. One can always keep asking for the evidence that has not been given.

First show us a problem with the evidence -including the one chekced by third parties- that has been given. Simply "it can be faked" is too easy. It doesn't matter that it can be faked. The question is, HAS it been faked?

Someone ask me earlier to reference a quote from anyone on here that says there was or is no need to go back and study the moon. Thank you for suppling the evidence for this claim. :dance: If what you say is true, then why is NASA sending another lunar orbiter with a high resolution camera in 2008?

The question now becomes: Will NASA make available the transmission protocols so that other independent researchers can receive and process the data for themselves? Also, will NASA take high resolution images that include any of the Apollo landing sites?

Trust me, if NASA does this, it will silence all the Moon Hoax theories in a heart beat!

As far as validating the new images, I can assure you that by having the Date/Time and X,Y,Z coordinates of the orbiter and the images themselves, you can calculate and cross reference the images to validate them as being real and authentic. ;)

...

[Van Rijn]

First show us a problem with the evidence -including the one chekced by third parties- that has been given. Simply "it can be faked" is too easy. It doesn't matter that it can be faked. The question is, HAS it been faked?

Actually, it does matter. He has not shown, and I have never seen a credible argument about how it could have all been faked.

But as for the rest, I agree. He is always complaining about the thing that wasn't done, but even there he sets impossible requirements. He has already said he won't accept the LRO results then asks why we haven't sent a mission like LRO.

[softearth]

We pointed you to photos of three of the LMs on the lunar surface taken in 1971-2, which did not impress you. The resolution is similar to the 1966-8 Lunar Orbiters. If you don't believe me, go back to this site (http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/landing_sites.html) and check the picture of the Apollo 12 site taken from a Lunar Orbiter. The Surveyor 3 lander is visible, but only as a bright spot with a shadow, just like the LMs in the later Apollo panoramic camera photos. The LRO which will map the entire moon starting in 2008 will not have much better resolution. I expect in the next few months we will get MRO pictures of the Vikings and other landers on Mars. This will give you an idea of what to expect from LRO. It will no doubt be as unimpressive to you as the Apollo LM pictures. Face it, the only detailed pictures of Apollo hardware on the moon we are ever likely to see are the ones taken by the astronauts on the surface.

You are never going to be satisfied, your beliefs are unfalsiable and thus by scientific standards irrational.

How comes NASA could send a lunar orbiter in 1967 with enough resolution, but not now? :confused:

Are you afraid to deal with the scientific facts and face the truth? :confused:

You're making no sense with your arguments....NONE :confused:

...

[Van Rijn]

It's not my fault that people will accept any evidence that hasn't been verified by independent third parties for review and conclusion.


But it has been. We've pointed that out. You didn't listen.



All the evidence you speak of can be duplicated of faked with little effort, but that's not the point I'm trying to make here.


Easily duplicated? NONSENSE. Explain how you would fake extended "takes" in 1/6 G *correctly*. The only people I've ever seen make this argument have not studied the relevant subjects in anywhere near enough detail to have any authority to make this statement. If you can't explain your arguments, you are admitting you don't have a clue. Many of the people here have *studied* the subject. It is not a matter of belief, but of learning.




Are you saying that nobody other than NASA can decode the radio signals? Is this a challenge? I've had the pleasure of working with some of the best programmers in the world and I can assure you that others besides NASA can handle the task. I would love for NASA to explain why other scientist don't have the knowledge and/or equipment to receive and process to data being sent back. Of course, NASA would have to make available the algorithms and transmission protocols used, but that's a small issue that most programmers deal with on a daily bases.


I ask AGAIN. Are you going to contact NASA and ask them about the hardware and software requirements to receive and decode the LRO data stream? You have no room to complain if you can't even bother to do that.

[gwiz]

How comes NASA could send a lunar orbiter in 1967 with enough resolution, but not now? :confused:

Are you afraid to deal with the scientific facts and face the truth? :confused:

You're making no sense with your arguments....NONE :confused:

...
I didn't say that LRO will have less resolution than the Lunar Orbiters, I said that you didn't accept the Lunar Orbiter resolution pictures as valid evidence and that I doubted you would accept the LRO pictures either.

The scientific facts are that there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers of Apollo-based science, and none supporting the hoax theory.

[dhd40]

It´s unbelievable how you all can spend so much time on this lol topic. softearth is softearth is softearth ... why not stop arguing?
I hope, this statement is not too uncouteous.

[softearth]

I didn't say that LRO will have less resolution than the Lunar Orbiters, I said that you didn't accept the Lunar Orbiter resolution pictures as valid evidence and that I doubted you would accept the LRO pictures either.

The scientific facts are that there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers of Apollo-based science, and none supporting the hoax theory.

How many times must I say it? :confused:

As far as validating the new images, I can assure you that by having the Date/Time and X,Y,Z coordinates of the orbiter and the images themselves, you can calculate and cross reference the images to validate them as being real and authentic. ;)

[Van Rijn]

I didn't say that LRO will have less resolution than the Lunar Orbiters, I said that you didn't accept the Lunar Orbiter resolution pictures as valid evidence and that I doubted you would accept the LRO pictures either.

Right. At best, LO had a ground resolution of about 1 meter per pixel. LRO would do a bit better than that, but it's pretty clear that softearth has little understanding of what that would mean. In a LO image, a lunar rover ideally would be about a 2x3 pixel discoloration. LRO would be slightly better. There would be no fine detail.

[Van Rijn]

How many times must I say it? :confused:


I didn't see an answer to my questions.

[gwiz]

As far as validating the new images, I can assure you that by having the Date/Time and X,Y,Z coordinates of the orbiter and the images themselves, you can calculate and cross reference the images to validate them as being real and authentic. ;)
This data is available for the Apollo panoramic camera pictures, but you don't believe them.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?ds=PSPG-00206

[softearth]

Right. At best, LO had a ground resolution of about 1 meter per pixel. LRO would do a bit better than that, but it's pretty clear that softearth has little understanding of what that would mean. In a LO image, a lunar rover ideally would be about a 2x3 pixel discoloration. LRO would be slightly better. There would be no fine detail.

Wrap it up! I'll take it! :)

Remember, as far as validating the new images, I can assure you that by having the Date/Time and X,Y,Z coordinates of the orbiter and the images themselves, you can calculate and cross reference the images to validate them as being real and authentic.

...

[Nicolas]

Someone ask me earlier to reference a quote from anyone on here that says there was or is no need to go back and study the moon. Thank you for suppling the evidence for this claim. If what you say is true, then why is NASA sending another lunar orbiter with a high resolution camera in 2008?

First of all, I never said that there is no need to go back and study the moon. You extrapolate that from me saying there was no justification of the costs of sending a high res satellite to the moon, which is a whole other thing.

Second, while your 2008 satelllite is high res, it is not as high res as you'd need to clearly identify the landers. So even in 2008 and the return to the moon campaign, there is no apparent need for a truly high res satellite.

It may have appeared to you this was support for your point, but it is rather the opposite.

[Gillianren]

Remember, as far as validating the new images, I can assure you that by having the Date/Time and X,Y,Z coordinates of the orbiter and the images themselves, you can calculate and cross reference the images to validate them as being real and authentic.

So you keep saying. Can I ask you a few questions and get you to actually answer them, please?

1. Was the Soviet Union fooled? If not, why didn't they say anything? If so, how were they, with their vast numbers of scientists in the relevant fields, fooled but you aren't?

2. What, exactly, do you find suspicious? Seriously. I haven't been able to figure this out. Is it that NASA won't give you the negatives? Because I'm really unclear on what information you think they're still hiding. If it's that they can't show you pictures taken now that show the landing sites, what knowledge of the relevant technologies do you have that makes you think they should be able to?

3. Do you understand the difference between "length" and "diameter"? This is a biggie, because it's really, really apparent to all of us that you don't. Yes. You're absolutely right. There are miles and miles of rover tracks; good for you for noticing. If, as you say, the resolution will show objects that are 15' in diameter, how wide would the rover tracks have to be to show up in the images?

4. What qualifies someone as an outside party? Obviously, there is a limited number of people who actually stepped on the Moon. True enough. However, why do you disqualify the testimony of the geologists who study the rocks, the ham radio operators who tracked the modules, the physicists who look at the footage and say, "Yes, that's what footage shot on the Moon should look like," the people bouncing lasers of the little reflectors, and, of course, the 400,000 people who were in on the construction of the whole thing?

[softearth]

First of all, I never said that there is no need to go back and study the moon. You extrapolate that from me saying there was no justification of the costs of sending a high res satellite to the moon, which is a whole other thing.

Second, while your 2008 satelllite is high res, it is not as high res as you'd need to clearly identify the landers. So even in 2008 and the return to the moon campaign, there is no apparent need for a truly high res satellite.

It may have appeared to you this was support for your point, but it is rather the opposite.

:shifty: Perhaps you and Van Rijn need to talk, because he says that the LRO will have enough resolution to verify the rovers and lunar modules on the surface of the moon in 2008.



Originally Posted by Van Rijn
Right. At best, LO had a ground resolution of about 1 meter per pixel. LRO would do a bit better than that, but it's pretty clear that softearth has little understanding of what that would mean. In a LO image, a lunar rover ideally would be about a 2x3 pixel discoloration. LRO would be slightly better. There would be no fine detail.

Hum...it seems that someone can't get their facts straight. :doh:

...

[gwiz]

:shifty: Perhaps you and Van Rijn need to talk, because he says that the LRO will have enough resolution to verify the rovers and lunar modules on the surface of the moon in 2008.



Hum...it seems that someone can't get their facts straight. :doh:

...
Perhaps you need to put a little more effort into understanding other people's posts.

The LRO pictures will have about 0.5 metre resolution. They will not be that different from the LM pictures which you rejected. This resolution is enough to verify that objects the size of a Lunar Rover or LM are present, but not enough to give any detail. This is the difference between "verify" and "clearly identify".

[softearth]

Perhaps you need to put a little more effort into understanding other people's posts.

The LRO pictures will have about 0.5 metre resolution. They will not be that different from the LM pictures which you rejected. This resolution is enough to verify that objects the size of a Lunar Rover or LM are present, but not enough to give any detail. This is the difference between "verify" and "clearly identify".

I guess were down to splitting hairs now and that's a good thing because we all seem to agree that we will be able to VERIFY the existence of the Lunar modules and Rovers on the surface of the moon at all of the Apollo landing sites with the LRO scheduled for launch in 2008.

Are you saying that resolution of the LRO to be launched in 2008 will not be better or equal to the resolution of the LO images taken way back in 1967?

[Tolls]

I guess were down to splitting hairs now and that's a good thing because we all seem to agree that we will be able to VERIFY the existence Lunar modules and Rovers on the surface of the moon at all of the Apollo landing sites with the LRO scheduled for launch in 2008.

Now, to get NASA to make the radio signals available to independent researchers and to make sure they take images of the actual landing sites.

Now that wasn't so hard...was it? :razz:

You really do have problems parsing people's posts, don't you?

gwiz clearly stated "(t)his resolution is enough to verify that objects the size of a Lunar Rover or LM are present", which is by no means the same as saying that "we will be able to VERIFY the existence Lunar modules and Rovers on the surface of the moon". The resolution is not sufficient, which is what everyone has been trying to explain to you...

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Frantic Freddie http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=838406#post838406)
I asked a question.Where's my answer?

'cause that sure ain't it.
Perhaps you should get your father to explain my answer to you. :think:Ah, one of the last refuges HBs and ATMers take when they're cornered: the ad hominem.

Rather pathetic.

Having followed this thread for a while, I have to draw a parallel to racquetball, or even tennis.

In those contests, when a competitor finds his/herself outclassed in a match, that individual usually resorts to lobs. The lobs won't win the game, but they will keep the opponents running around long enough such that the outclassed competitor may claim a Pyrrhic victory.

Meanwhile, the drawback for the competitor is the opponents may follow the same approach.

For example, softearth, how many fingers do you have on each hand?

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/froehlich/a010.gif

[R.A.F.]

Softearth continues to ignore questions put to him.

I will now return the "favor" and put softearth on ignore...

[Tog]

It's not my fault that people will accept any evidence that hasn't been verified by independent third parties for review and conclusion. All the evidence you speak of can be duplicated of faked with little effort, but that's not the point I'm trying to make here. My point is that there has never been any independent evidence to validate NASA claims by simply showing photos of the lunar landing sites from a lunar orbiter either from NASA or another space agency. Not one single picture in the past 35 years, even though several other orbiters have been sent to the moon since then, the camera's on board didn't have enough resolution to spot the landers, rovers and/or other evidence. NASA could send a orbiter in 1967 with enough resolution, but no one else can since then! How convenient for NASA, wouldn't you say?

But it HAS been verified. You everything they offered for examination could be faked. We are (and have been for some time) asking how it was faked? NASA doesn;t claim the landing were real just because of that one picture. There were many pictures taken there, and brought back. All of which are available for public viewing. Yes, there are no good pictures of the landers. Why would you expect there to be? THey send up the surveyor to scout the landing site. They send up the landers. Why would they send up another surveyor craft just to see of the landers are where they left them? What possible purpose would that serve? What scientifically valid information could be gained by doing this? If your only answer is, "to prove they went", then this is a complete waste of time for all concerned.

People believe in the Civil war because photos were taken from hundreds of photographers on both sides of the war. Besides, you can find evidence of the war by going to Gettysburg and finding bullets and other items with a $100 metal detector. Again, independent research and conclusion are supported here, but not with the moon landings. Thank you for helping me make my point on this issue.

And people were able to track the Apollo missions with equiment in their back yards at the time. That is also independant research. Thank you for helping me to make mine. BTW, how do you know all thos bullets and buttons and such weren't planted there? Do you have any pictures from any newspaper in India?

For arguments sake, I will concede that the rover tracks may not be visible (depending on the cameras resolution), but there is no excuse for not seeing the lunar landers and the rovers with the same technology available way back in 1967. I repeat, NO EXCUSE!

No excuse? How about money? The US ecoomy was not in a good state in the early 70's. There was rationing at gas stations. You really think people would accept a multi dollar mission to the Moon just to see that the landers are still there? In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalissimo_Francisco_Franco_is_still_dead).

1967 – NASA sends a lunar obiter to the moon to find landing sites for the Apollo missions. The technology used was able to spot 15 foot rocks with ease. I'm wonder if smaller rocks are also visible, perhaps I'll review that video again to see if any rocks smaller than 15 feet are indeed visible.

1969 to 1971 – NASA says it landed people on the moon and stopped sending people back for some odd reason. You would think at the height of the Cold War with Russia we would establish a moon base to take the high ground for national security reasons at minimum. Oh yeah, all the Apollo Command Modules that flew overhead never had any chance to take pictures of the landers, except for Apollo 17 mission, which unfortunately shows nothing you can distinguish as a lunar lander and/or rover.

So you think that they should have planned the orbits to overfly the other sites? There is no chance that someone noticed that they would pass over that one and that it might make a good opportunity for a photo? No, coincidences like that never happen in science, let alone space science. *cough* Gallileo (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/newsletters/lpib/lpib71/galileo71.html) *cough*.

I'm sure if the cat woman wanted to, she could find the evidence to verify if they went on their vacation or not, so the point you make here is weak at best since I've already answered a similar question in reference to the Civil war.

But she's willing to look. She won't believe the pictures, shw KNOWS you never left. Why bother with the evidence. More to the point, Why would you bother trying to convince that cat woman that you did go?

This is the whole point of my argument! Show me proof that can be independently verified using basic scientific protocols and I will shut up. As I have stated time and time again, the easiest way to do this is with a lunar orbiter with a high resolution camera to show the landing sites. Maybe NASA has a spare one left over from 1967? Until then, my case of finding the truth still stands!

Not likely, if they did it would have been diamanlted for parts. All of the evidence to date has been made available to reserchers from all over the world. How is that not Independant? You seem to be taking the stance that becasue the Police collected the evidence at a murder, it should be inadmissable becasue they are bias towards enforcing the law. Better to let some guy walking by do it then, eh? If I ran a lab, conducted a test and found something amazing, then made it available for all to see, how would it be different? If my conclusion was wrong, it would be discovered. Cold Fusion ring any bells? Short of making the control center like the infield at a NASCAR race, how would you suggest letting people get the information at the same time NASA does? Oh yeah...

Are you saying that nobody other than NASA can decode the radio signals? Is this a challenge? I've had the pleasure of working with some of the best programmers in the world and I can assure you that others besides NASA can handle the task. I would love for NASA to explain why other scientist don't have the knowledge and/or equipment to receive and process to data being sent back. Of course, NASA would have to make available the algorithms and transmission protocols used, but that's a small issue that most programmers deal with on a daily bases.

No, I'm saying that the equipment to do it is out of the price range of most people. As was mentioned before, you can listen on on Cassini. What did NASA say to your request for the file format, and other items you mentioned? You surely asked them for it by now.

It is not NASA's dime, it is the US taxpayers dime! And NO, it is not good science to comb over the raw data before others can review it. And NO, NASA doesn't make all the raw data available, they only release what they approve.

Tax money goes to the Gov't. THey dispense it to the various agencies to spend. It's NASA's money. Well, the seem to have approvead ALL of the Apollo data? You know of anything locked away in a secret vault someplace?

Example: The original tapes and footage from some of the Apollo missions has never been released and now they apparently have conveniently lost or misplaced some of it.

Again, this was mentioned before. The content of those tapes ARE available. The tapes themselves are just better quality versions of the old transmissions. I beleive the last analogy was, "If the original master was lost, would the White Album cese to exist"?

Many scientist and ordinary people from around the world have their doubts about the Apollo missions since there has not been any independent evidence that supports the official story.

You have a list of REPUTABLE scientists then? People with actual expertise in the fields involved? Who are the geologists who say the rocks are fake? Who are the Engineers who say that a soft landing and lift off were not possible?

Nice try, but I'm not going to get into these issues, because many others have already done so with great success. I'm sticking to my point of having no independent verification showing the lunar modules and rovers from a lunar orbiter in the past 35 years.

Please clarify what you mean by "great success". DO you mean that the other evidence has successfully been shown to be false? Or that it has successfuly been shown to be valid. I actually don't expect a real answer to this, becasue I know that you can't say the other evidence is valid, as that will go against your position. You also can't say that the other evidence is false, because you will have to provide some sort of support for it. Well you would if you could.

I can't speak for Russia or China, but I think it's very interesting that China is planning missions to the moon in the coming years. Who knows what they will find out.

And whether or not they will share it with any from other contries. They really are under no obligation to do so.

The only thing I have as solid evidence is that there is no photos showing lunar modules or rovers on the surface of the moon. We know that NASA could send an lunar orbiter to take high resolution pictures of the moon way back in 1967, but neither NASA or any other space agency has done so in the past 35 years. That my friend is an undisputed fact accepted by everyone including yourself. :razz:

Agreed that there are no photos showing the lander in enough detail. Also agreed, that they may have been able to do it 1967, barely. The fact that no one has bothered to try it since is beacause... Wait... this just in... Generalissimo Francisco Franco is STILL dead. Sorry, breaking news there. The reason is becasue the money is tied up doing usefull and semi-useful things. There is no reason to spend millions to rebuild and launch a mission to go back and say, "Yup... right where we left it."

[softearth]

Softearth continues to ignore questions put to him.

I will now return the "favor" and put softearth on ignore...

Go ahead and bail, some people just can't handle the truth! :clap:

[ToSeek]

How comes NASA could send a lunar orbiter in 1967 with enough resolution, but not now? :confused:


NASA could send a Hubble-equivalent mission to the Moon and do the lunar equivalent of reading license plates, but what's the point? The pre-Apollo Lunar Orbiter missions had one very good reason for their high resolution: to survey potential Apollo landing sites to see if they were too rough to use. There's limited scientific reason for 2m resolution visible imagery, which is why neither Clementine nor Prospector nor SMART-1 had such a capability.

[tofu]

And nobody here or at NASA has proven to me that we did land men on the moon.

That's because you're not reasonable. Every actual scientist with an actual university education is convinced of Apollo. Every engineer with an actual engineering degree and actual real-world experience is 100% convinced of Apollo.

Who cares what you think? You're don't have a clue what you're talking about. You keep saying, "x,y,z coordinate." Lol. I'm sorry, but you really don't have a clue. Who cares what you think?

If NASA spent millions of dollars of MY tax money just to convince you and people like you, that would be a tremendous waste. Because all you're going to do is move the goalpost. "oh, well obviously those pictures were created here on Earth and transmitted to the probe which then resent them back to Earth."

Waste waste waste.

NASA does science and exploration. NASA has provided all the proof of Apollo that any reasonable person could ever need. Apollo has been independently verified by literally thousands of actual scientists and engineers. What you think about Apollo means exactly zero.

If you'd like to learn something, this forum is a great place to learn. But if you're so arrogant as to think that your opinion on Apollo means something, when you have no education and no background, well then you are sadly mistaken. Softearth, I don't care at all what your opinion is of my open-heart surgery. I don't care because you're not a doctor. You have no clue what you're talking about with regard to medicine. Softearth, I don't care at all what your opinion is of Apollo. I don't care because you're not a scientist or an engineer. You have no clue what you're talking about with regard to Apollo. I would have to be insane to listen to you about surgery. I'll listen to doctors instead. And I would have to be insane to listen to you about apollo. I'll listen to every scientist and engineer on the planet. They sort of out number you.

[bonkey]

You have got to be kidding me! :naughty: Are you trying to make us believe that NASA has discovered everything they need to know about the moon from the Apollo missions? Give us a break! :sick:


No. I'm not kidding you.

You've either misunderstood or misrepresented what I said.

I never said NASA has discovered everything they need. Not once. I said that the area they least need information on is the area they'be already been to. I also suggested that they have no need whatsoever to pander to the demands of Hoax-believers, but left it open for you to explain why thats not the case.



They're three main reason for going back to the moon:

I'm fully in agreement NASA should go back to the moon. I still don't see why they should spend an erg of energy on tasks not related to the three points you mention - science, commercial and military. Fulfilling a HB wish to see high-res pictures of a landing site does not in and of itself fit in any of those tasks.



Now then, you must ask yourself, why hasn't NASA or any other space agency ever taken photos that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Lunar Modules do in fact exist on the surface of the moon.

The obvious answer is because they stand nothing to gain from the expenditure of effort and thus it would amount ot nothing but a squandering of precious resources.

Until we can argue that it wouldn't be such a waste, and that there is some valid reason for incurring this cost rather than spending the money on research of scientific, commercial or military interest, then we must accept that the most logical course of action for NASA is to not undertake this.


NASA was able to send a Lunar orbiter way back in 1967 to take high resolution pictures of the moon that could show a 15 foot rock and it's tracks from rolling down a hill, but none after the landings! This seems very suspicious to me any many others
What is suspicious about it? Why should they have taken additional high-resolution images? What scientific, commercial or military purpose would have been served by taking high-resolution pictures of the same area of hte moon as before, or indeed of a small area of hte rest of the moon? You said these are the relevant reasons, so you should surely be able to explain how re-photographing the same areas as before serves one of these purposes.


since I've already pointed out why we should go back to the moon.
I've never questioned that we should go back to the moon nor, I believe, has any other poster on this thread.



The bottom line is that nobody here or at NASA can give a good reason for this lack of evidence in over 35+ years.

Of course there's a good reason. They had better things to do than pander to HB wishes and wants.

Also, pedantically, its not a lack of evidence, its a lack of the specific evidence you've decided you want. What I find enlightening is that many people here have already explained to you how fulfilling your demands wouldn't establish the truth beyond any uncertainty.

In other words, even if you could argue that there was a benefit to satisfying HB demands, you'd also have to explain why an imperfect proof would be enough to meet your needs when your criticism of all existing evidence is that it amounts to an imperfect proof.



Instead we get people on here saying there is no reason to study or go back to the moon.
No, we don't. We get people saying that there is no reason to carry out the experiment you want carried out on any return to the moon. We also get you misunderstanding or misrepresenting those statements.


Until then, this is all just a bunch of hot air coming from angry monkeys reading from the holy script.
If thats what you choose to believe, thats what you choose to believe.

One can only lead a horse to water.

[captain swoop]

didn't the Orbiters just well, crash into the moon and take a whole load of pictures on the way down?

[Nicolas]

Thanks to others for explaining the misunderstandings in reading posts made by SoftEarth that miraculously always twist things positive for him...

I'm still following this thread, but only with half an eye. And yes I can handle the truth, no problems.

[gwiz]

Are you saying that resolution of the LRO to be launched in 2008 will not be better or equal to the resolution of the LO images taken way back in 1967?
Probably about twice as good as Lunar Orbiter (Did you check that Lunar Orbiter picture of Surveyor 3?) The main improvement over the earlier missions is the extension of coverage rather than resolution, to support future manned missions which will be able to reach higher latitudes than Apollo could.

[gwiz]

didn't the Orbiters just well, crash into the moon and take a whole load of pictures on the way down?
No, that was Ranger. The Lunar Orbiters had a film camera system with on-board development and scanning to return the images. Primary mission was high-resolution mapping of potential Apollo landing sites to find if the ground was smooth enough for safety. As a bonus, lower resolution pictures of most of the moon's surface were obtained.

[softearth]

That's because you're not reasonable. Every actual scientist with an actual university education is convinced of Apollo. Every engineer with an actual engineering degree and actual real-world experience is 100% convinced of Apollo.

Who cares what you think? You're don't have a clue what you're talking about. You keep saying, "x,y,z coordinate." Lol. I'm sorry, but you really don't have a clue. Who cares what you think?

If NASA spent millions of dollars of MY tax money just to convince you and people like you, that would be a tremendous waste. Because all you're going to do is move the goalpost. "oh, well obviously those pictures were created here on Earth and transmitted to the probe which then resent them back to Earth."

Waste waste waste.

NASA does science and exploration. NASA has provided all the proof of Apollo that any reasonable person could ever need. Apollo has been independently verified by literally thousands of actual scientists and engineers. What you think about Apollo means exactly zero.

If you'd like to learn something, this forum is a great place to learn. But if you're so arrogant as to think that your opinion on Apollo means something, when you have no education and no background, well then you are sadly mistaken. Softearth, I don't care at all what your opinion is of my open-heart surgery. I don't care because you're not a doctor. You have no clue what you're talking about with regard to medicine. Softearth, I don't care at all what your opinion is of Apollo. I don't care because you're not a scientist or an engineer. You have no clue what you're talking about with regard to Apollo. I would have to be insane to listen to you about surgery. I'll listen to doctors instead. And I would have to be insane to listen to you about apollo. I'll listen to every scientist and engineer on the planet. They sort of out number you.

I now understand how Galileo must have felt when he tried to convince everyone that the Earth indeed went around the Sun. But no, everyone said it was the Sun that went around the Earth, including all the doctors and engineers of the time. People laughed at him and dismissed him as a fool, but with pure logic and common sense on his side his views succeeded over time.

It's funny that the instrument he used was a telescope to gather the information needed to validate his theories, whereas I am asking for the same instrument of sorts to verify the Apollo moon landings.

Why does it upset so many people to simply get high resolution images of the moon's surface like NASA did way back in 1967 to verify the Apollo missions and to study the moon in more detail for Science, Commercial and Military purposes?

...

[gwiz]

Why does it upset so many people to simply get high resolution images of the moon's surface like NASA did way back in 1967 to verify the Apollo missions and to study the moon in more detail for Science, Commercial and Military purposes?

...
What resolution is used for mapping the earth? Why isn't it good enough to tell a Ford from a Mercedes? (I think you can see my car in that frame!)

Why do they all compare themselves to Galileo?

[Donnie B.]

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).

[pvicente]

How many times must I say it? :confused:

As far as validating the new images, I can assure you that by having the Date/Time and X,Y,Z coordinates of the orbiter and the images themselves, you can calculate and cross reference the images to validate them as being real and authentic. ;)
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?

[captain swoop]

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?

[softearth]

NASA could send a Hubble-equivalent mission to the Moon and do the lunar equivalent of reading license plates, but what's the point?.

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 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1913474363747128107&q=what+happened&hl=en)

Video Part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5737681932896358451&q=what+happened&hl=en)



The pre-Apollo Lunar Orbiter missions had one very good reason for their high resolution: to survey potential Apollo landing sites to see if they were too rough to use. There's limited scientific reason for 2m resolution visible imagery, which is why neither Clementine nor Prospector nor SMART-1 had such a capability.

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.

...

[tofu]

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/answers/lunar_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.

[Grand_Lunar]

Originally Posted by ToSeek
NASA could send a Hubble-equivalent mission to the Moon and do the lunar equivalent of reading license plates, but what's the point?.

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


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.



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.

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.

[Tog]

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.

[Grand_Lunar]

For future missions, you can buy or build a satellite dish and listen in on NASA space probes. Nothing is being hidden from you.

Ooo! I want that! :D

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

[V-GER]

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.

...


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.

[tofu]

I would think that nation security would be the most important reason of all to setup a lunar base.

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.

[Hamlet]

Remember, as far as validating the new images, I can assure you

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.


that by having the Date/Time

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



and X,Y,Z coordinates of the orbiter

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



and the images themselves

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



you can calculate

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



and cross reference the images to validate them as being real and authentic.


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?

[captain swoop]

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.

[Dave J]

Someone ask me earlier to reference a quote from anyone on here that says there was or is no need to go back and study the moon. Thank you for suppling the evidence for this claim. :dance: If what you say is true, then why is NASA sending another lunar orbiter with a high resolution camera in 2008?

The question now becomes: Will NASA make available the transmission protocols so that other independent researchers can receive and process the data for themselves? Also, will NASA take high resolution images that include any of the Apollo landing sites?

Trust me, if NASA does this, it will silence all the Moon Hoax theories in a heart beat!

As far as validating the new images, I can assure you that by having the Date/Time and X,Y,Z coordinates of the orbiter and the images themselves, you can calculate and cross reference the images to validate them as being real and authentic. ;)

...

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.

[softearth]

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.

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.

...

[Musashi]

Cost effective. Uh huh.

[tsig]

:exclaim: No, I simply stated that it was possible to use a remote unmanned spacecraft with relays to achieve the effect of the astronauts traveling to the moon.

...

No it isn't possible.

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

[softearth]

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.

Ecliptic Coordinates

[tsig]

As a matter of fact, I do some coding from time to time, doesn't everyone these days? :surprised

I agree with you that I'm losing some of the audience here, mainly because a few people seem to want to ignore logic and basic scientific protocols when it comes to sourcing and validating raw data for independent review and conclusion. :wall:

We like our data raw and the....

[JohnW]

Softearth, you haven't shown us any reason to suspect that the Moon landings did not take place. And we have an immense amount of evidence indicating that they did. So what's the point of sending a probe to verify what we already know? Especially as the excuses are already in place for disbelieving any new evidence.

To show you have a case, you first need to explain how all the evidence we have could have been faked. All the evidence. That includes over 300kg of samples, hours of film footage, thousands of photographs, telematry data, the reflectors, and on and on it goes. You have to show how every bit of this evidence was faked. If there is anything left for which the only realistic explanation is astronauts on the Moon, then there were astronauts on the Moon.

But that's not all. Once you've shown in detail how everything could have been faked, you then need to present some evidence that it was faked. For example, suppose you were able to demonstrate that the film could have been created in a gigantic vacuum chamber. (I don't think you can show this, but just for the sake of argument...) You would then have to show us some evidence that a gigantic vacuum chamber was actually built - where? how? by whom? - and explain why its existence is not common knowledge.

Until you can do at least some this (and you haven't even begun) I'll take your claims as seriously as if you were saying Canada didn't exist.

[antoniseb]

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

You are here talking about your idea of sending a mission to orbit the moon using old parts from a Lunar Orbiter mission. I don't agree that this is 'cost effective', but as was mentioned earlier there soon will be a new lunar orbiter mission with high resolution imaging capability.

You mentioned that NASA should make the communication protocol for this mission public so that independent people can receive the raw image data and decode it themselves. I don't know how far along the mission development is. I know they would need to protect the information about how to upload requests to the probe, but it would be cool if they made the direct downloads something that someone with a large enough dish could intercept. THAT might be cost effective.

[softearth]

No it isn't possible.

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

We all agree that the Apollo spacecraft with men on board went to the moon and were tracked by using the radio signal from the actual spacecraft.

Why couldn't they just send a spacecraft to the moon with a radio relay on board instead of men to get the same radio tracking results?

...

[R.A.F.]

...what happens if we spend millions of dollars to make you happy? You or someone else will just demand more.

That is exactly what Richard Hoagland did, re. the "face" on Mars. For years he cried, "If NASA would only take HIRES images, then he would be "happy".

NASA did take those pictures, showing the "face" to be an eroded hill, yet Hoagland continues to claim that the "face" is artificial...

[Sigma_Orionis]

Ecliptic Coordinates

These (http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~fv/webnotes/chapter9.htm) ARE ecliptic coordinates, not X, Y, Z

[Grand_Lunar]

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!

Define "independent" evidence.

Other nations, including the enemies of the US at that time, tracked the radio signals, did Doppler plots, and examined the rock samples they brought back.

Do you mean that the average Joe should determine if the landings took place as given by the data?
I believe Ralph Rene tries that.


Why couldn't they just send a spacecraft to the moon with a radio relay on board instead of men to get the same radio tracking results?

You mean why that method wouldn't have worked to hoax a mission?

Light travel time, for one. Also, the spacecraft would be seen in orbit, with no way to hide it.

And then there's line of sight. When the craft moves out of site of where the supposed sattilite would be, they lose comm with it. Same problem when it orbits the moon.

Then you have to also explain the amatuer astronomers that observed waste dumps taking place. One also saw the oxygen cloud from the Apollo 13 accident.

[tofu]

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.

If enough people call their congressional representative and demand that NASA send a probe just to confirm apollo, then it would become a priority for NASA and it would happen. However, you are greatly overestimating the number of stupid people in the world. Most people are able to see right through the lies in those videos. Most people are smart enough to do that.


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!

I demand that you stop lying. There are mountains of evidence and independent verification. Every scientist and every engineer on the planet agrees that Apollo happened. They have all independently verified Apollo. Please stop lying.



And when someone suggest a simple, cost effective way to prove the landings indeed took place


you have suggested a simple, cost-effective way to do something stupid. I would also like to suggest that we build another space probe to go catch up to Voyager and make sure that it's really out there. But, but that's so easy to do!! Yeah maybe, but it's also stupid.



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.


Those videos are lying to you. Stop being so gullible.

[tsig]

How comes NASA could send a lunar orbiter in 1967 with enough resolution, but not now? :confused:

Are you afraid to deal with the scientific facts and face the truth? :confused:

You're making no sense with your arguments....NONE :confused:

...

So we are all deluded, confused, and not in touch with reality?

[gwiz]

To show what LRO's 0.5 metre resolution is like in earth terms, here's (http://ortho.mit.edu/nsdi/draw-ortho.cgi?action=pan&x=319&y=340&image=241902&dwidth=500&width=500&dheight=500&height=500&zoom_level=1&middlex=5748&middley=7704) an example. Will this satisfy you?

[NEOWatcher]

Define "independent" evidence.

Other nations, including the enemies of the US at that time, tracked the radio signals, did Doppler plots, and examined the rock samples they brought back.

Do you mean that the average Joe should determine if the landings took place as given by the data?

There is sooooooo much here I want to comment on, but this made me equate this whole "independent" thing with e=mc2. There's no independent evidence because it has only been physicists that have studied it. :wall:

[tsig]

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 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1913474363747128107&q=what+happened&hl=en)

Video Part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5737681932896358451&q=what+happened&hl=en)



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.

...

I'm sure common sense mystifys you that's the problem.

[tsig]

We all agree that the Apollo spacecraft with men on board went to the moon and were tracked by using the radio signal from the actual spacecraft.

Why couldn't they just send a spacecraft to the moon with a radio relay on board instead of men to get the same radio tracking results?

...

Because of the delay times, it works both ways you know.

[softearth]

To show what LRO's 0.5 metre resolution is like in earth terms, here's (http://ortho.mit.edu/nsdi/draw-ortho.cgi?action=pan&x=319&y=340&image=241902&dwidth=500&width=500&dheight=500&height=500&zoom_level=1&middlex=5748&middley=7704) an example. Will this satisfy you?

Yes, having pictures of this resolution will convince me, along with all the other skeptics out there. So please tell NASA that we will accept nothing less or I'll keep posting until the year 2050.

Thanks :)

[Nicolas]

To show what LRO's 0.5 metre resolution is like in earth terms, here's (http://ortho.mit.edu/nsdi/draw-ortho.cgi?action=pan&x=319&y=340&image=241902&dwidth=500&width=500&dheight=500&height=500&zoom_level=1&middlex=5748&middley=7704) an example. Will this satisfy you?

It would be quite amazing that a LM measuring 8*8 pixels, or a rover measuring 6*3 pixels would suddenly convince somebody who wasn't convinced by huge pictures taken from meters distance and the rest of the mountain of evidence. "it can all be faked". Yeah, as if that handful of pixels you're waiting for couldn't be faked. We're lucky if we could clearly identify the LM anyway at that size. Depends a bit on lighting conditions. Just look at the luggage carts on the pic given, they're comparable to the rover, and some hardly stand out against a neutral background. So don't have too high hopes, though I'm quite sure that at least *something* will be visible, certainly when the lighting is at low angle (long shadows!). But I don't get how a new NASA picture with a LM of a few pixels would suddenly convince you while there already is all the original data which, no matter how many times you say the contrary or come with exotic terms, is verified by the international community.

btw good luck in your independent processing of the 100 terrabytes of image data LRO will send. I hope you work at Dreamworks or something with computation farms of that order.

[softearth]

To show what LRO's 0.5 metre resolution is like in earth terms, here's (http://ortho.mit.edu/nsdi/draw-ortho.cgi?action=pan&x=319&y=340&image=241902&dwidth=500&width=500&dheight=500&height=500&zoom_level=1&middlex=5748&middley=7704) an example. Will this satisfy you?

One other thing, we should be able to see the tracks of the rover since you can clearly make out some tracks in this picture.

Oh yeah, just one more thing, NASA should allow for independant verification of the raw data being sent back from the LRO by giving people open access to the radio signals.

[jaydeehess]

Because of the delay times, it works both ways you know.

As to the robotic collection of Lunar dust by the Soviets, I was under the assumption that this was a simple scoop and dump. That once the lander was down an earth based controller then ordered the scoop down to touch the surface and once it did so to extend the scoop and then lift up and dump the sample into a bin that in turn retracted back into the lander.

Hardly evidence that in the 1960's that a robotic lander could return core samples, packed so as to protect them from the shaking of Lunar lift-off and Earth re-entry and also collect hundreds of pounds of various types of material from dust to pebbles to racks. It is more like a mechcano-set with a remote start capability and a few micro-switches.

As for any mission, by any agency at all, being able to dispel the Apollo Hoax beliefs of the producers of those videos, or anyone who has viewed them and believed them; this entirely falacious. All that will happen ,IMHO, is that people like our softearth, will claim that the photos of the landers on the surface of the Moon are themselves faked. That they are photos that were created and loaded onto the orbiter prior to launch and sent back to Earth at the appropriate times while the orbiter was over the locations of the Apollo sites. The orbiter could simply do its advertised job, taking pics of the Lunar surface except when it passed over those locations, at which time it substitues the stored image for what the camera is actually seeing, OR even simpler, an insertion of landers and associated hardware into the image of that portion of the Moon. All this would require is a few KB of memory and a few lines of extra code. It would require no added hardware on the orbiter, would have the orbiter in the correct location to take pics of the landing sites and the picture data sent back to Earth would indeed contain the Apollo landers.

Softearth, what in my supposition above would you be able to detect?

Now that I have given you a perfectly viable way to fake Lunar orbiter pics of Apollo landing sites how about you come up with ways to fake ALL of the existing evidence of the Apollo landings. This being something that you have been asked to do several times now and have utterly ignored.

[Grand_Lunar]

Oh yeah, just one more thing, NASA should allow for independant verification of the raw data being sent back from the LRO by giving people open access to the radio signals.

Which is what they do anyway. :wall:
Sheesh.

[Hamlet]

One other thing, we should be able to see the tracks of the rover since you can clearly make out some tracks in this picture.

Oh yeah, just one more thing, NASA should allow for independant verification of the raw data being sent back from the LRO by giving people open access to the radio signals.

Here (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16926) you go. This took me all of 5 seconds of Googling to find. NASA must be really trying to hide this. :rolleyes:

There are even two points of contact listed. I look forward to your report on what they say.

[Grand_Lunar]

It would be quite amazing that a LM measuring 8*8 pixels, or a rover measuring 6*3 pixels would suddenly convince somebody who wasn't convinced by huge pictures taken from meters distance and the rest of the mountain of evidence. "it can all be faked". Yeah, as if that handful of pixels you're waiting for couldn't be faked. We're lucky if we could clearly identify the LM anyway at that size. Depends a bit on lighting conditions. Just look at the luggage carts on the pic given, they're comparable to the rover, and some hardly stand out against a neutral background. So don't have too high hopes, though I'm quite sure that at least *something* will be visible, certainly when the lighting is at low angle (long shadows!). But I don't get how a new NASA picture with a LM of a few pixels would suddenly convince you while there already is all the original data which, no matter how many times you say the contrary or come with exotic terms, is verified by the international community.

Excellent point.

The hardcore skeptics will likely never be convinced, even if they were taken to the moon and shown the hardware in person.



btw good luck in your independent processing of the 100 terrabytes of image data LRO will send. I hope you work at Dreamworks or something with computation farms of that order.

100 terabytes?
Yikes. So much for "at home" processing.

You know, he never did define "independent verification".

I hope this thread doesn't turn out like the one at LC did.

[Grand_Lunar]

Here (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16926) you go. This took me all of 5 seconds of Googling to find. NASA must be really trying to hide this. :rolleyes:

There are even two points of contact listed. I look forward to your report on what they say.


No exuse now for not having "independent verification".

[Dave J]

Yes, having pictures of this resolution will convince me, along with all the other skeptics out there. So please tell NASA that we will accept nothing less or I'll keep posting until the year 2050.

Thanks :)

err, don't hold your breath, SE...you seem to think that NASA finds merit in your theories, or even considers them worthy of their attention. They know how the HB mindset works also. (or are you being facetious, hard to tell sometimes).

BTW, it appears that you have a distorted view of how data from space gets to the "public". The data is received and put into a customer usable form by the operating agency (NASA, ESA, etc). This is sent to the primary investigative organization, be it from academia or a government research group. They have first dibs on their data, as they paid the $$. (Virtually all Hubble shots, for example, were first part of planned, documented and funded research programs, which eventually made them public...they aren't just for the sake of "pretty pictures"). I would expect that the using organization also has the raw data files from the experiments.
So the space shots you see have already been scrutinized by scientists at many levels. The surface shots from Apollo are very much for the scientists. Each stop on the EVAs required panoramic shots, to assist in triangulating exact locations of samples, experiments etc. They did innumerable before and after sample shots. The fact that we the public find some of them interesting and inspiring is a benefit, but not always the primary goal. Jump salutes...these folks were the ultimate tourists...of course they will get some "personal" shots.

Your need for "proof" doesn't even register on the national scientific "to do" list when it comes to mission design. The number of hoax believers out there is actually miniscule, and if this is hard to accept, so be it. Again, no proof of any substance has ever been brought forth in favor of the hoax.

You want Moon rock samples? There is a website that tells you how to get them for study...but they obviously don't lend them out to just anyone...

Dave

[tofu]

Here (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16926) you go. This took me all of 5 seconds of Googling to find. NASA must be really trying to hide this. :rolleyes:

There are even two points of contact listed. I look forward to your report on what they say.

good find!

So there you go SE. You can listen to the telemetry from the LRO yourself, and you say that the pics will satisfy you. There's nothing more to talk about.

[sts60]

It seems that the only course of action to resolve this mystery is to make available the raw data from the next Lunar orbiter schedule for launch in 2008. Give me the picture format, the radio frequency and the X, Y and Z coordinates of the Lunar orbiter and I will be satisfied.

Since you clearly have no idea of how any of it works ("the picture format", "the X, Y, and Z coordinates"), the first question is: What would you do with the information?

The second question is: Have you attempted to contact the LRO project with your questions?

The third and most important question, and I will ask it again: Why would you accept a digital data stream coming from a spacecraft built by an agency you accuse of wholesale deception? Your claim that you would is inconsistent with your own beliefs.

It's not my fault that people will accept any evidence that hasn't been verified by independent third parties for review and conclusion.

Doubly wrong. First, most of us have actually looked at and thought about the data to various extents. A number of us have directly relevant expertise to judge its veracity. You haven't looked at or thought about it, and you don't know anything about the subject.

Second, the evidence (lunar samples, ALSEP data, mission tracking, hardware, etc.) has been verified by competent international third parties for decades. This has been explained to you many times, but you simply ignore and deny these explanations.

NASA could send a orbiter in 1967 with enough resolution, but no one else can since then! How convenient for NASA, wouldn't you say?

No. Simply a matter of spending priorities and a sense of "been there, done that". And as a U.S. taxpayer, I would strongly object to spending on the order of a hundred million dollars strictly to respond to a bunch of ignoramouses.

People believe in the Civil war because photos were taken from hundreds of photographers on both sides of the war.

Yes, photographs can be good documentation. Thousands of high-resolution photographs correlated to a strict mission timeline, plus many, many hours of motion imagery clearly taken in a 1/6 G vacuum environment, is even better. The imagery evidence for Apollo is orders of magnitude better than that for the Civil War.

Besides, you can find evidence of the war by going to Gettysburg and finding bullets and other items with a $100 metal detector.

And someone as ignorant of Civil War-era history, politics, and technolgy as you are of Apollo could simply wave their arms and talk about planted evidence. So?

Again, independent research and conclusion are supported here, but not with the moon landings.

Utterly, bizarro-world wrong. NASA has shared lunar samples and data worldwide, freely, for decades.

Thank you for helping me make my point on this issue.

You were too busy patting yourself on the back to realize you countered your own claims.

NASA says it landed people on the moon and stopped sending people back for some odd reason.

Wrong. Anyone familiar with U.S. history and politics as they really are understands perfectly that the attention-challenged and Vietnam-disillusioned populace lost interest in the manned explorations after the first couple of landings. No public interest => no political will => no money for more missions.

You would think at the height of the Cold War with Russia we would establish a moon base to take the high ground for national security reasons at minimum.

Ridiculous. There was simply no security function that could not be performed better and much more cheaply with the Earth (and Earth orbit)- bound technologies of the time.

Oh yeah, all the Apollo Command Modules that flew overhead never had any chance to take pictures of the landers, except for Apollo 17 mission, which unfortunately shows nothing you can distinguish as a lunar lander and/or rover.

Because that was the available resolution. Engineering reality does not need to conform to your unfounded expectations.

Show me proof that can be independently verified using basic scientific protocols and I will shut up.

You have yet to demonstrate the slightest familiarity with "basic scientific protocols".

As I have stated time and time again, the easiest way to do this is with a lunar orbiter with a high resolution camera to show the landing sites. Maybe NASA has a spare one left over from 1967?

One of the funniest things about HBs is how reliably they contradict themselves.
Step 1. Complain because decades-old technology didn't provide unmistakable image.
Step 2. Propose using same decades-old technology to provide unmistakeable image.

Until then, my case of finding the truth still stands!

No. You've simply decided what "the truth" is and set up an arbitrary standard of evidence, which you have no ability to interpret.

Example: The original tapes and footage from some of the Apollo missions has never been released and now they apparently have conveniently lost or misplaced some of it.

Already refuted multiple times. You don't get more correct by saying something wrong over and over again.

[re: lunar smaples, imagery record, etc.]
Nice try, but I'm not going to get into these issues, because many others have already done so with great success.

Yes, we have shown in some detail while all of the HB allegations about these issues are wrong. In any case, your reply above indicates you have abandoned any pretense of trying to back up such claims.

How comes NASA could send a lunar orbiter in 1967 with enough resolution, but not now?

Your confusion only seems to get worse with each successive post. Your resistance to explanations, however, seems to be steady.

I now understand how Galileo must have felt

Please, don't stop with comparing yourself to Galileo. Why don't you add in Newton, Darwin, and Einstein?

It's funny that the instrument he used was a telescope to gather the information needed to validate his theories, whereas I am asking for the same instrument of sorts to verify the Apollo moon landings.

The ironic thing about this is that (so the story goes, anyway) some Church authorities refused to look through the eyepiece of the telescope. Not only have you refused to acknowledge any of the evidence served up to you - to look through the telescope, as it were - you wouldn't know which end to look through even though you're demanding the "X, Y, Z" coordinates (snicker) as if you were knowledgeable about the subject!

Why does it upset so many people to simply get high resolution images of the moon's surface like NASA did way back in 1967 to verify the Apollo missions and to study the moon in more detail for Science, Commercial and Military purposes?

Straw man. No one is upset about getting more high-resolution images of the Moon. As has been repeatedly pointed out, no one has wanted to shell out a hundred million dollars or so simply to satisfy the paranoia and ignorance of conspiracists. NASA actually commissioned a book to answer HB claims a few years ago, but the $15,000 they proposed spending on it was hooted down as a waste of money. As an American taxpayer - and I pay more taxes than you - I concur. It would be like spending money for a Mars imager simply to take pictures of the "Face".

Meanwhile, you have yet to explain why you would accept a digital data stream from the spacecraft as "proof", even assuming you had the chops to do anything with it.

Finally, we're still waiting on your responses to other issues raised here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=838621&postcount=252).

[Nicolas]

One other thing, we should be able to see the tracks of the rover since you can clearly make out some tracks in this picture.


And those tracks are in fact lines painted in high contrast colours to make sure they're clearly visible for the people depending on them, much unlike rover tracks which are little more than a dent in the dust. you might be able to see them, but don't count on it.

[sts60]

good find!

So there you go SE. You can listen to the telemetry from the LRO yourself, and you say that the pics will satisfy you. There's nothing more to talk about.

Well, softearth still needs to look up the mission data dictionary to decom the data stream, and he'll need the orbital elements when they become available.

But I'm sure he'll jump right on that. ;)

[Swift]

Yes, having pictures of this resolution will convince me, along with all the other skeptics out there. So please tell NASA that we will accept nothing less or I'll keep posting until the year 2050.

Thanks :)
Why? Why would that convince you and other "skeptics"? If you think that in 1969 NASA could fake the data sent from the moon and received by not just NASA but from people around the world (including other governments and ham radio operators), why don't you think they could just do it again? And I'm not just giving you a hard time softearth, I truly don't understand this?

To me, the most truly unfakeable data is the 100s of kg of moon rocks (maybe because I'm a chemist). I know of absolutely no way to fake those and they have been independently tested by geologists all over the world. I have asked you repeatedly to explain how those were faked and you have not even attempted an answer. So forget the pictures of the LMs sitting on the moon, how did they fake the rocks?

[tofu]

Well, softearth still needs to look up the mission data dictionary to decom the data stream, and he'll need the orbital elements when they become available.

But I'm sure he'll jump right on that. ;)

and he needs the special goggles. Don't forget the special goggles.

http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y103/nicanfhilidh/th_tinfoilhat.jpg

[Kodiak]

People believe in the Civil war because photos were taken from hundreds of photographers on both sides of the war. Besides, you can find evidence of the war by going to Gettysburg and finding bullets and other items with a $100 metal detector. Again, independent research and conclusion are supported here, but not with the moon landings. Thank you for helping me make my point on this issue.
:razz:

And none of those photographers are alive today ot verify they actually took those pictures. How convienient for you Civil War believers! And like the government couldnt throw a bunch of musket balls and other metal debris around some supposed battle fields. Nice try Softearth, but your arguments for the Civil War just dont hold water.:naughty:


Yes Softearth, that is how condensending and ignorant you come across each time you post.

[Gillianren]

Because I've been completely ignored again . . . .


Can I ask you a few questions and get you to actually answer them, please?

1. Was the Soviet Union fooled? If not, why didn't they say anything? If so, how were they, with their vast numbers of scientists in the relevant fields, fooled but you aren't?

2. What, exactly, do you find suspicious? Seriously. I haven't been able to figure this out. Is it that NASA won't give you the negatives? Because I'm really unclear on what information you think they're still hiding. If it's that they can't show you pictures taken now that show the landing sites, what knowledge of the relevant technologies do you have that makes you think they should be able to?

3. Do you understand the difference between "length" and "diameter"? This is a biggie, because it's really, really apparent to all of us that you don't. Yes. You're absolutely right. There are miles and miles of rover tracks; good for you for noticing. If, as you say, the resolution will show objects that are 15' in diameter, how wide would the rover tracks have to be to show up in the images?

4. What qualifies someone as an outside party? Obviously, there is a limited number of people who actually stepped on the Moon. True enough. However, why do you disqualify the testimony of the geologists who study the rocks, the ham radio operators who tracked the modules, the physicists who look at the footage and say, "Yes, that's what footage shot on the Moon should look like," the people bouncing lasers of the little reflectors, and, of course, the 400,000 people who were in on the construction of the whole thing?

[Van Rijn]

Yes, having pictures of this resolution will convince me, along with all the other skeptics out there. So please tell NASA that we will accept nothing less or I'll keep posting until the year 2050.

Thanks :)

So you state, on the record, you will accept images from NASA? And, for the record, you will state that images a few pixels wide for the descent module and rover will be sufficient to convince you?

[Van Rijn]

Because I've been completely ignored again . . . .

And he ignored my repeated question: Will he contact NASA to ask what hardware and software would be required to receive and decode the data stream of the LRO?

[PhantomWolf]

Wow, four pages and.....

I've already answered his question

Could have foooled me. Please point to the answers you have given to these questions.

From here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=837690&postcount=175)

1) Why should the US Tax Payer pay for your wants?
2) Since when is eye-witness (Astronuat) testimony hearsay?
3) If they were in Earth orbit during the missions, how did the Apollo 11 crew do the TV transmission where they focused back from the earth and to the window sill, then moved the camera to look out a second window at them Earth, focusing back in on it? More info here (http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11)
4) If the CSM was in Earth Orbit as you claim, why weren't they seen from the Earth?
5) How did Amatuer Astronomers take images of them on the way to the moon, and how did Ham Operators and the Soviets track them to the moon if they were in Earth Orbit?
6) If the US was behind the Soviets, how did they manage to return over 1000x the weight in samples the Soviets did?
7) How did they obtain 8 foot deep core samples?
6) How did they get the white and orange soil samples? Both of which were far from the landing zone and found almost by accident.
8) How did they get the Anorthosite rock? Again found far from the landing site and with luck and knowledge, not by grabbing random samples. (If you don't know what Anorthosite is I suggest you look it up.)
9) Why and how would a robot return a 12kg rock?
10) Who build these probes?
11) Where and when were they launched?
13) Who controlled them?
14) How did these pobes return to them to Earth un-noticed?
15) How did they take an image of a huge rock and chip part of it off as a sample?
16) Why is your burden of proof so much lower for robots than for humans?


From here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=838355&postcount=230)

17) Why do you claim it is easier to sent a remote controlled craft than a Human controlled one when remote controlled vehicles have been shown here on Earth to be harder to operate?

From here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=838377&postcount=235)

With regards to your claims of remote unmanned spacecraft.

10a) Who built them?
11a) Who launched them?
12a) Who controlled them?
18) Where did the funding come from?
19) What proof do you actually have that these spacecraft ever existed?


From here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=838392&postcount=239)

20) Have you bothered asking NASA for Source Information?


Now for some more questions for you to ignore.

Many scientist ... around the world have their doubts

21) Name one with appropriate credentionals in a supporting field.

Trust me, if NASA does this, it will silence all the Moon Hoax theories in a heart beat!

Baloney, they would just claim these images are faked too.

How comes NASA could send a lunar orbiter in 1967 with enough resolution, but not now?

22) Why should they?
23) Exactly What scientific purpose would such an orbiter serve?

All the evidence you speak of can be duplicated of faked with little effort

24) How?

but that's not the point I'm trying to make here.

If you make the claim you darn well better back it up rather then use this sorry cop out.

As far as validating the new images, I can assure you that by having the Date/Time and X,Y,Z coordinates of the orbiter and the images themselves, you can calculate and cross reference the images to validate them as being real and authentic.

Balony, I can think of at least two ways to fake that without even trying.

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.

Not one person here has claimed this. We are saying that there is little point in PHOTOGRAPHING the moon. Why? BECAUSE IT"S BEEN DONE!!!!!! What part of this do you not understand? Further exploration of the moon should and can only be done with Manned missions or robotic rover, perferably manned. Photos aren't going to tell us squat we don't already know.

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!

No, we haven't shown you that Ham Radio Operators listened to the missions, and the Soviets didn't bother tracking 8, 10, 11 and 12, and there weren't any Australians or Spainish involved in tracking, and no international scientists have ever loooked at the lunar samples or film footage, or watched it Live on TV.....

simple, cost effective way to prove the landings indeed took place

25) Do you know what goes into a lunar orbiter and how much it will cost?

Why couldn't they just send a spacecraft to the moon with a radio relay on board instead of men to get the same radio tracking results?

10b) Who built them?
11b) Who launched them?
12b) Who controlled them?
18a) Where did the funding come from?
19a) What proof do you actually have that such a spacecraft ever existed?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I now understand how Galileo must have felt. . .
Dang. Forty points for you... (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)

[tofu]

Dang. Forty points for you... (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)

haha!

And another 40 for this:

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.



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?


Why are corporate endeavors halted or swept under the run?? It's a vast conspiracy!!

[Grand_Lunar]

Softearth is sounding more like individuals that I've encountered on the moon hoax thread on 'Loose Change'. Maybe he should zip over there?

[Dave J]

Softearth is sounding more like individuals that I've encountered on the moon hoax thread on 'Loose Change'. Maybe he should zip over there?

He'd fit right in, eh? Heck, he could well be there now! (though the thread there has really gotten off track.)

[tsig]

And none of those photographers are alive today ot verify they actually took those pictures. How convienient for you Civil War believers! And like the government couldnt throw a bunch of musket balls and other metal debris around some supposed battle fields. Nice try Softearth, but your arguments for the Civil War just dont hold water.:naughty:


Yes Softearth, that is how condensending and ignorant you come across each time you post.

Ok in' callin you on this, show me the Confeterate potoraphers

The only photos are from the union side.

We did not go to the moon and the civil war did not happen. just where does the ride end?

[PhantomWolf]

Do you want to take the red pill or the blue pill, Alice?

[AGN Fuel]

I now understand how Galileo must have felt when he tried to convince everyone that the Earth indeed went around the Sun. But no, everyone said it was the Sun that went around the Earth, including all the doctors and engineers of the time. People laughed at him and dismissed him as a fool...

I fear you are mistaken, my friend. They laughed at Bozo the Clown, with whom you appear to share attributes. Who laughed at Galileo? (Believe me, the church didn't)

I am still waiting a reply regarding my earlier query, as this alone is highly compelling evidence and as yet you have not provided any feasible way to fake this:


And of course, this communication would have to be able to discuss events of the day in real time, transmitted and received directionally by MSFN, for extended periods of time.

I look forward to your explanation of how that was achieved without an obvious screw up of the time delays. :eh:

By the way, I managed to find this photograph (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11598.jpg) - if you look closely, you may be able to make out the Apollo 15 'Falcon' LM & the LRV on Hadley Plain. This is from the same source that you are willing to accept data from in 2008. Enjoy.

[Maksutov]

I now understand how Galileo must have felt when he tried to convince everyone that the Earth indeed went around the Sun. ...The head of the Mars Conspiracy nailed this one long ago.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
- Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science by Carl Sagan
Yes, having pictures of this resolution will convince me, along with all the other skeptics out there. So please tell NASA that we will accept nothing less or I'll keep posting until the year 2050.So now you are speaking for "all the other [Apollo] "skeptics"? Was there a vote or is this a self-appointment?

BTW, at the rate you are not answering questions posed to you, I doubt you'll be posting in 2050.
As far as validating the new images, I can assure you that by having the Date/Time and X,Y,Z coordinates of the orbiter and the images themselves, you can calculate and cross reference the images to validate them as being real and authentic.
Originally Posted by Dave J http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=839564#post839564)
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.

Ecliptic CoordinatesEcliptic coordinates have no practical application for tracking a satellite orbiting the Moon, although for a circumpolar lunar satellite, it could be a neat mathematical challenge to do, an exercise which I will leave for the reader. Instead its right ascension and declination are what are used to determine its position as seen from Earth. As seen from the Moon the satellite position would be the two coordinates (possibly slight modified to account for the change of location) and the satellite's altitude above the Moon's mean surface. Where the satellite is in relation to the Moon's surface could also be expressed as latitude and longitude, since the Moon has been mapped using this system. (http://www.fi.edu/pieces/schutte/moonpics/LandingSitesMapbl.jpg)

Ecliptic coordinates provide a semi-accurate way to map out a number of solar system objects as seen from the Earth, but are essentially useless for tracking artificial satellite paths, whether Earth-orbiting or Moon-orbiting.

[captain swoop]

There you go getting all technical again!

[softearth]

All these replies yet still no LO image showing the lunar modules or rovers on the surface of the moon in over 35 years. WOW! :boohoo:

[V-GER]

Softearth; are you winding people up intentionally? If so, it's working and that would also make you a troll.

The lack of pictures has been explained to you over and over again but you just refuse to acknowledge this. Do you even read the posts here?

I recommend this thread be closed until 2008 and the LRO mission.

[Van Rijn]

Softearth; are you winding people up intentionally? If so, it's working and that would also make you a troll.

The lack of pictures has been explained to you over and over again but you just refuse to acknowledge this. Do you even read the posts here?

I recommend this thread be closed until 2008 and the LRO mission.

And we know already what he will say about that.

I would also recommend the thread be closed, since he is ignoring repeated questions and answers.

[softearth]

Softearth; are you winding people up intentionally? If so, it's working and that would also make you a troll.

The lack of pictures has been explained to you over and over again but you just refuse to acknowledge this. Do you even read the posts here?

I recommend this thread be closed until 2008 and the LRO mission.

Are you recommending that this thread be censored until 2008 so that others can't read it :question:

I've read every response, but I'm not going to get off-topic like some would hope for. I started this thread to discuss LO missions and to see if any images existed that would help to prove the moon landings. I learned about the 1967 LO mission that proved it was indeed possible, but to my surprise none exist.

It's good to know that NASA is sending another LO in 2008 with the right equipment and hopefully, this one piece of evidence will be available then.

...

[bonkey]

Are you recommending that this thread be censored until 2008 so that others can't read it :question:

There you go with that misunderstanding/misrepresenting thing again.

Closed <> unavailable.


I've read every response, but I'm not going to get off-topic like some would hope for.

There you go with that misunderstanding/misrepresenting thing again.

Answering relevant questions directed at you is not off-topic.



I started this thread to discuss LO missions and to see if any images existed that would help to prove the moon landings.

They don't. You've been told they don't. If thats all you wanted to find out, we're done and you shouldn't have any objection to the notion that the thread be closed.



I learned about the 1967 LO mission that proved it was indeed possible, but to my surprise none exist.


Your surprise, yes.

[V-GER]

Are you recommending that this thread be censored until 2008 so that others can't read it :question:

Censored, hah. As you've actually "revealed" something here. But no, locking a thread will not make it unviewable.


I've read every response, but I'm not going to get off-topic like some would hope for.

Off topic in this case would mean answering questions.


It's good to know that NASA is sending another LO in 2008 with the right equipment and hopefully, this one piece of evidence will be available then.

Yes isn't it, with no other purpose what so ever than to take pictures of the landing site, so you and like can "independently" verify the results.

[Van Rijn]

Are you recommending that this thread be censored until 2008 so that others can't read it :question:


I like the term "wind-up artist." Didn't know it until BAUT. It certainly fits.

We've answered your questions. You asked them again. We answered again. You ignored the answers. We ask you questions. You ignore them and repeat everything all over again. We've been more than fair. There's no point to continue this charade.



I've read every response, but I'm not going to get off-topic like some would hope for.


Right. Like answering just how you would fake lunar conditions that you simply state is "easy." Of course, we both know you aren't answering because you don't have any idea how you would do it.

Whatever, this thread is winding down.

[softearth]

Answering relevant questions directed at you is not off-topic.


Just for the record, I've answered a lot of replies, including shooting down one of yours as I remember. ;) I plan to answer all relevant questions when I get the time to do so.

It is quite amusing though to watch some people scramble to answer simple questions. Some may accept a box of rocks, ham radio operators testimony, closeup photos and films and/or live TV broadcast as evidence, but others may choose LO images and I see nothing wrong with that.

...

[AGN Fuel]

It is quite amusing though to watch some people scramble to answer simple questions. Some may accept a box of rocks, ham radio operators testimony, closeup photos and films and/or live TV broadcast as evidence, but others may choose LO images and I see nothing wrong with that.

...

I can only hope that I am never in court when you are a jury member. I can imagine the debate in the jury room - "Yes, I am aware that evidence has been tendered that indicates that the accused was in a different state when the murder was committed. I am also aware that he has never owned a gun, has no idea how to load or fire one, has no motive whatever for the murder and his doctor has testified that he was in a coma in hospital at the time. However, unless I can see footage of the accused not firing the gun, I remain suspicious. Why can't he produce the footage? Frankly, I think he's guilty until proven innocent."

To be honest, I think that your obtuseness is deliberate. I don't find your act particularly amusing though.

[softearth]

I can only hope that I am never in court when you are a jury member. I can imagine the debate in the jury room - "Yes, I am aware that evidence has been tendered that indicates that the accused was in a different state when the murder was committed. I am also aware that he has never owned a gun, has no idea how to load or fire one, has no motive whatever for the murder and his doctor has testified that he was in a coma in hospital at the time. However, unless I can see footage of the accused not firing the gun, I remain suspicious. Why can't he produce the footage? Frankly, I think he's guilty until proven innocent."

To be honest, I think that your obtuseness is deliberate. I don't find your act particularly amusing though.

:doh: This makes absolutely no sense at all, perhaps you should talk to your doctor about that coma, without a gun of course. :lol:

[captain swoop]

I know calling people Trolls is frowned upon but this is the most blatant example I have seen.

Why are you all feeding him?

[V-GER]

It is quite amusing though to watch some people scramble to answer simple questions. Some may accept a box of rocks, ham radio operators testimony, closeup photos and films and/or live TV broadcast as evidence, but others may choose LO images and I see nothing wrong with that.


Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? You reject 350kg + moon rocks, you reject radio operator testimony, you reject foreign scientists' analysis of the rocks, in fact you reject all third party evidence which you yourself so loudly demanded at one point! You reject surface photos, you reject live tv footage but you would accept digital pictures taken from orbit?!?

Let me ask you this: if instead of moon rocks, surface pictures and film, radio signal tracking and so on, the only evidence would be an orbital picture from the LO, would you find that more credible than what we have now?

[Keermalec]

The truth is, Softearth, anyone can disbelieve anything. The only way to determine if an info is a hoax is to determine if anyone has an interest in making others believe it. The question therefore should be:

"For what reasons would NASA try to fake something like the moon-landing?"

and not

"Did the moon landing really happen?"

Now the answer to the first question would be certainly be linked to the cold war and the need for the US government in those days to "beat" soviet scientists to the moon. However, the cold war is over today and therefore that reason drops. If NASA has not confessed that the landing was a hoax by now, then it certainly is not a hoax.

I actually tend to be a sceptic, like you. I only believe things when I see them. I have never been to California and therefore I believe it does not exist: it is an imaginary land designed in film studios to make us happy dreaming of sea, sun and fun. I don't believe in you either, Softearth: your posts are certainly produced by a programme designed to generate traffic to this site and make us go mad flaming each other...

:-)

[softearth]

Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? You reject 350kg + moon rocks, you reject radio operator testimony, you reject foreign scientists' analysis of the rocks, in fact you reject all third party evidence which you yourself so loudly demanded at one point! You reject surface photos, you reject live tv footage but you would accept digital pictures taken from orbit?!?

Let me ask you this: if instead of moon rocks, surface pictures and film, radio signal tracking and so on, the only evidence would be an orbital picture from the LO, would you find that more credible than what we have now?

LO images taken from an independent source in conjunction with all the other evidence supplied by NASA would defiantly help to convince a lot of people.

Of course this independent source would clearly make available all the raw data associated with the images from the beginning of the mission to insure it's authenticity.

The location of the LO, Date/Time, the images themselves and perhaps a challenge/response code are enough to validate the data being recieved from the LO. ;)

...

[Gillianren]

Welcome to the board, Keermalec; I'm only too aware that California does indeed exist, as I grew up there.

Softearth, I think answering why you disbelieve the literally tons of evidence in existence would be a nice start, and then you can get to the rest of my questions--and everybody else's.

[softearth]

The truth is, Softearth, anyone can disbelieve anything. The only way to determine if an info is a hoax is to determine if anyone has an interest in making others believe it. The question therefore should be:

"For what reasons would NASA try to fake something like the moon-landing?"

and not

"Did the moon landing really happen?"

Now the answer to the first question would be certainly be linked to the cold war and the need for the US government in those days to "beat" soviet scientists to the moon. However, the cold war is over today and therefore that reason drops. If NASA has not confessed that the landing was a hoax by now, then it certainly is not a hoax.

I actually tend to be a sceptic, like you. I only believe things when I see them. I have never been to California and therefore I believe it does not exist: it is an imaginary land designed in film studios to make us happy dreaming of sea, sun and fun. I don't believe in you either, Softearth: your posts are certainly produced by a programme designed to generate traffic to this site and make us go mad flaming each other...

:-)

Never believe anything you hear and only half of what you see. :D

[Grand_Lunar]

By the way, I managed to find this photograph - if you look closely, you may be able to make out the Apollo 15 'Falcon' LM & the LRV on Hadley Plain.

Great photo! High quality.

Softearth, you really should look at it.

[V-GER]

LO images taken from an independent source in conjunction with all the other evidence supplied by NASA would defiantly help to convince a lot of people.

But this means that you will not accept any Nasa images(LRO or otherwise) 'cause they're not from an independent source?!? So in addition to the LRO, we must also have a privately funded mission to verify that the LRO images are authentical?

[captain swoop]

So I guess that you won't believe the new NASA moon mission is real if the info comes from NASA?

Will you believe the Chinese if the info only comes from them?

[Grand_Lunar]

Never believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.

Very well.
In that case, I will include what you write in the one half of things for me not to believe.

Fair enough?

You still haven't defined what, by your standards, would count as independent verification.

I'd like to ask you this: the photos from the surface, taken by the astronauts, are widely available, both in print and online.
Why not have an independent party verify them, rather than waste hundreds of millions just to satisfy the minority population of HBers?

Also, and answer has been given as to why no other high-res orbiters have gone to the moon: priorities.
It just hasn't been a priority to send a probe to the moon just to image the Apollo sites to satisfy the HB crowd. There was just no reason for it.

So, as friendly advice, quit ignoring that, and stop acting like a troll.

[softearth]

But this means that you will not accept any Nasa images(LRO or otherwise) 'cause they're not from an independent source?!? So in addition to the LRO, we must also have a privately funded mission to verify that the LRO images are authentical?

If NASA provides the raw information as mentioned before, it would help, but YES, having an independent source other than NASA would be the optimal solution.

Is employing checks and balances a bad thing? :shifty:

[V-GER]

Well then we're in for a long wait aren't we. Unless you would accept missions by other countries as independent source, which of course would be strange since you don't accept the Soviet's acknowledgement of Apollo.

[R.A.F.]

I know calling people Trolls is frowned upon but this is the most blatant example I have seen.

Not just frowned upon, it's against the rules of this board...emphasis mine...


16. Reporting Bad Posts

If you feel a post breaks one of these rules, please report it by clicking the 'report' button (the red triangle with the exclamation mark inside it, located at the top right hand side of every post). Do not talk about bad posts in the forum itself. All reported posts are reviewed by moderators or administrators, and are treated very seriously (so do not report frivolously). If you have concerns, please PM a moderator or administrator.

So the answer is to PM the mods/admin.

Which I (and I'm sure others) have done...

Since I have seen no evidence of moderator intervention, then I must assume that softearth's "posting style" is acceptable behaviour for this board.

[captain swoop]

Whats with this 'raw information' bit? what's to stop NASA just preloading the images they want you to see onto the proe and sending them back??

[softearth]

Well then we're in for a long wait aren't we. Unless you would accept missions by other countries as independent source, which of course would be strange since you don't accept the Soviet's acknowledgement of Apollo.

It's not so much about the independent source as the raw data.

Independent source = 25%
Raw Data = 75%

Right now I have 0% from any source. So, like I stated before, I'll take the raw data from NASA.

...

[softearth]

Whats with this 'raw information' bit? what's to stop NASA just preloading the images they want you to see onto the proe and sending them back??

The odds of having a fake image match the coordinates of the LO, data/time landscape features and shadows of a real image are very low.

The LO coordinates will be tracked at all times to make sure the images taken are inline with the rest of the data.

[Tog]

The odds of having a fake image match the coordinates of the LO, data/time landscape features and shadows of a real image are very low.

The LO coordinates will be traked at all times to make sure the images taken are inline with the rest of the data.

IF Position = (Alt, Az, Dist) then transmit file 1.

faked

[bonkey]

Just for the record, I've answered a lot of replies, including shooting down one of yours as I remember. ;)

You misremember.

You responded to one of mine alright and attempted to shoot it down. I subsequently replied back pointing out that you had misunderstood or misrepresented what I said, and that the point of view you "shot down" was not the one I had expressed.



I plan to answer all relevant questions when I get the time to do so.

If you can't resolve this recurring miscomprehension/misrepresentation issue you appear to have, I'd save yourself the effort, to be honest.



Some may accept a box of rocks, ham radio operators testimony, closeup photos and films and/or live TV broadcast as evidence, but others may choose LO images and I see nothing wrong with that.

What you see as right and wrong is at the crux of this issue. You don't get to decide that certain proof is unacceptable because you want something else. You have to explain why its unacceptable. All of it. Piece by piece.

In addition, you also have to explain why what you claim would be acceptable evidence is proof against the same types of fabrication you allege the original evidence may have been subject to.

But you're still correct. Some people accept the evidence, and some don't. Do not for a moment, however, be of the mistaken opinion that both positions are equally valid and supoprtable purely on the basis that each enjoys popularity.

Truth is not a democracy.

[softearth]

IF Position = (Alt, Az, Dist) then transmit file 1.

faked

The LO would start/stop taking pictures when the command is sent from Earth at random times/locations.

Could you please calculate the odds of a preloaded file matching all the raw data parameters for all of us here?

[Tog]

The LO would start/stop taking pictures when the command is sent from Earth at random times/locations.

Could you please calculate the odds of a preloaded file matching all the raw data parameters for all of us here?

Can you explain how the position would be random? I mean, as opposed to a preplanned orbit laid out months in advance of the launch.

Also, why would the time of the pictures taken be random? You're making some assumptions there that won't really stand up. If they plan to take a picture of THIS area, the path of the LO is known, the position of the target is known, the time it will take to get to that position will be known. How about you calculate the odd that a random time/position of the image will show that particular 40 km patch you want to see.

[AstroSmurf]

The images data returned will likely be continous unless they want to save power. There's no point in switching a CCD camera off.

[softearth]

Can you explain how the position would be random? I mean, as opposed to a preplanned orbit laid out months in advance of the launch.

Also, why would the time of the pictures taken be random? You're making some assumptions there that won't really stand up. If they plan to take a picture of THIS area, the path of the LO is known, the position of the target is known, the time it will take to get to that position will be known. How about you calculate the odd that a random time/position of the image will show that particular 40 km patch you want to see.

Of course the LO would have a preplanned orbit laid out, but the variances of the coordinates and the actual date/time stamp would be sufficient to discourage preloaded fake images to be sent instead of the real image since all the landscape features and shadows need to correspond with the raw data all in real time. IMHO

[captain swoop]

So have the time stamp added to the data as it's sent. How do you know what the image should look like anyway? What would you compare it to? one of the other images that NASA has provided? Why don't u acceptthe pictures, video and movies taken from the surface? how much higher res do you want?

Whats to stop the picture being taken and the image of the landers etc being added before they are transmitted to earth?

[Tog]

Of course the LO would have a preplanned orbit laid out, but the variances of the coordinates and the actual date/time stamp would be sufficient to discourage preloaded fake images to be sent instead of the real image since all the landscape features and shadows need to correspond with the raw data all in real time. IMHO

Ahh, but the resolution will also be the margin for error. If they plan to fake this, why wouldn't they take the images they already have, apply a terrain mapping 3D mesh to get the features right, then apply some 9th grad trig based on the position of the Moon and the Sun If the image is transmitted 60 seconds before or after the LO gets to the right spot, would you really be able to tell with a 0.5 meter resolution?

It's also really ironic to me that you seem convinced that every scrap of the Apollo missions are suspect, but that there is no way to fake something like this.

[tofu]

So just to be clear, we are now arguing how it's possible for NASA to fake evidence of apollo - and the hoax believer is now arguing that it's not possible to fake that evidence?


**goes back to bed, hopes to wake up far away from bizzaro world**

[AstroSmurf]

I'm still curious how either science, commerce or military goals are served by spending several millon USD on what's essentially a tourist picture. Detailed maps of the surface, fine, now that NASA is actually returning there. But there's precious little need to be that precise otherwise.

I'm also curious why one slightly bigger featureless white blob in the right place will convince you, when another featureless white blob in the right place will not.

[softearth]

So have the time stamp added to the data as it's sent. How do you know what the image should look like anyway??

What would you compare it to? one of the other images that NASA has provided? Why don't u acceptthe pictures, video and movies taken from the surface? how much higher res do you want?

We could indeed use existing NASA, JAPAN, RUSSIA images to match with the new images for verification. This would be a great use of archived data.


Whats to stop the picture being taken and the image of the landers etc being added before they are transmitted to earth?

That is defiantly possible, but having a checksum at the point of image capture could help to reduce this risk (the checksum would also be sent back), but the ultimate solution would be to inspect and verify the on-board software before launch to verify the integrity of the system. Thats about all you can do, since there is no way to totally guarantee anything as 100% fool proof when it comes to computers and software.

...

[softearth]

I'm still curious how either science, commerce or military goals are served by spending several millon USD on what's essentially a tourist picture. Detailed maps of the surface, fine, now that NASA is actually returning there. But there's precious little need to be that precise otherwise.

I'm also curious why one slightly bigger featureless white blob in the right place will convince you, when another featureless white blob in the right place will not.

I'll reserve my opinion of the white blobs until I actually see them.

[captain swoop]

That is defiantly possible, but having a checksum at the point of image capture could help to reduce this risk (the checksum would also be sent back), but the ultimate solution would be to inspect and verify the on-board software before launch to verify the integrity of the system. Thats about all you can do, since there is no way to totally guarantee anything as 100% fool proof when it comes to computers and software.

...

What's to stop NASA showing one system and actualy launching another? you seem to think they launched loads of 'secret' missions with robot landers to bring back the rocks. it's a piece of cake to fake up one little lunar satellite!!

This is a good example of how unreasonable CT wes demands are, we can turn them back on u just as easily. At the end of the day, if you don't accept the masses of evidence that already exists why should NASA spend a whole packet of cash they need for the REAL Lunar mission on satisfying your demands.

What about if the new mission was to send a buggy with a couple of guys and a video camera out to teh actual landin site, wouldn't that be ok?

[sts60]

All these replies yet still no LO image showing the lunar modules or rovers on the surface of the moon in over 35 years. WOW!

All those replies and you have yet to acknowledge, let alone comprehend, the careful explanations given to you.

Are you recommending that this thread be censored until 2008 so that others can't read it

Wrong. A locked thread can still be read.

I've read every response, but I'm not going to get off-topic like some would hope for.

Wrong. There are literally dozens of directly relevant challenges waiting for you to address them. Many of them are for claims you've made in this thread but apparently abandoned without backing up.

I started this thread to discuss LO missions and to see if any images existed that would help to prove the moon landings. I learned about the 1967 LO mission that proved it was indeed possible, but to my surprise none exist.

Initial surprise based on unfounded assumptions is one thing. Continuing to be "surprised" in the face of cogent explanations which you simply ignore is another.

It's good to know that NASA is sending another LO in 2008 with the right equipment and hopefully, this one piece of evidence will be available then.

You have yet to explain why you would accept evidence from the agency which you claim faked the original effort.

Just for the record, I've answered a lot of replies, including shooting down one of yours as I remember.

Nope. You've answered none of the several dozen questions waiting for you, and you haven't gotten a single thing right since the start of this thread.

I plan to answer all relevant questions when I get the time to do so.

You have plenty of time to keep rattling on - and contradicting yourself - about images of the landing artifacts, but no time to actually consider the explanations and learn anything?

It is quite amusing though to watch some people scramble to answer simple questions.

No, nobody's "scrambling". For one thing, almost nothing you've said hasn't been said by some HB a hundred times here already, and refuted a thousand times, so the answers are immediately at hand. For another, many people here have relevant expertise and/or have studied Apollo at some length and already knew the answers. Finally, people have only needed a few minutes to look up answers which you could have looked up yourself, but instead spent the time asking repeatedly about "x, y, z coordinates" and other such silliness instead of doing a bit of your own work.

ome may accept a box of rocks, ham radio operators testimony, closeup photos and films and/or live TV broadcast as evidence,

That's not even close to all the evidence, and you described it wrongly, and you have completely failed to attempt to understand it, let alone rebut it, anyway. Reflexive denial and strawman noted.

but others may choose LO images and I see nothing wrong with that.

What's wrong is that you are claiming you will accept imagery from a source you don't trust. I don't believe your claim.

LO images taken from an independent source in conjunction with all the other evidence supplied by NASA would defiantly help to convince a lot of people.

No. You've already reflexively dismissed "all the other evidence supplied by NASA". And you're contradicting yourself - again - since you claimed you would accept imagery from a new NASA vehicle. Now you're trying to punt your acceptance point a little further down the field, but it's a very transparent evasion.

Of course this independent source would clearly make available all the raw data associated with the images from the beginning of the mission to insure it's authenticity.

Once again - since you don't know how any of it works, what would you do with the "raw data"?

The location of the LO, Date/Time, the images themselves and perhaps a challenge/response code are enough to validate the data being recieved from the LO.

No. The data could be faked on board.

The odds of having a fake image match the coordinates of the LO, data/time landscape features and shadows of a real image are very low.

No. All that would be required would be take a real image and simply modify a few pixels. It's feasible given today's computing technology.

The LO coordinates will be tracked at all times to make sure the images taken are inline with the rest of the data.

Since you don't know how any of it works, how would you make this determination?

The LO would start/stop taking pictures when the command is sent from Earth at random times/locations.

Oh, I see. We're simply going to let a national asset be commanded by any random idiot around the globe?

Could you please calculate the odds of a preloaded file matching all the raw data parameters for all of us here?

Pre-stored landing locations. Pre-stored artifact image profiles. Real images. Algorithm to blend stored artifact image to real image and modify lighting appropriately.

Given a relatively unchanging lunar surface, and a resolution insufficient to show a lot of fine detail, and compact onboard processing - I'd say the odds are pretty good.

Of course the LO would have a preplanned orbit laid out, but the variances of the coordinates

Word salad.

and the actual date/time stamp

Yeah, a date/time stamp is real hard to fake.

would be sufficient to discourage preloaded fake images to be sent instead of the real image since all the landscape features and shadows need to correspond with the raw data all in real time.

Irrelevant, since you can use real images and modify them.

That is defiantly possible, but having a checksum at the point of image capture could help to reduce this risk (the checksum would also be sent back),

Word salad. You don't understand what checksums are for.

but the ultimate solution would be to inspect and verify the on-board software before launch to verify the integrity of the system.

I have designed, developed, and tested spacecraft software. That wouldn't do it. Nor would you understand it anyway.

Thats about all you can do, since there is no way to totally guarantee anything as 100% fool proof when it comes to computers and software.

Meaningless handwaving.

IMHO

You know nothing whatsoever about physics or engineering or spaceflight or the history and politics of the time, but you have compared yourself to Galileo and your sig boasts pompously and redundantly of "Leading the way to truth, honesty, and integrity".

No. Your opinion is not humble.

[softearth]

What's to stop NASA showing one system and actualy launching another? you seem to think they launched loads of 'secret' missions with robot landers to bring back the rocks. it's a piece of cake to fake up one little lunar satellite!!

This is a good example of how unreasonable CT wes demands are, we can turn them back on u just as easily. At the end of the day, if you don't accept the masses of evidence that already exists why should NASA spend a whole packet of cash they need for the REAL Lunar mission on satisfying your demands.

What about if the new mission was to send a buggy with a couple of guys and a video camera out to teh actual landin site, wouldn't that be ok?

Well, for starters we would have the software checksums, and the challange/response system to help prevent this from happing.

As far as the moon buggy goes, I would ask the camera man to adjust and point the camera to the stars so I could check their location with star charts to verify their location.

...

[captain swoop]

how would the stars show up?
Please not lets get into a 'No Stars' discussion!
How would you know what stars should be visible?

[softearth]

how would the stars show up?
Please not lets get into a 'No Stars' discussion!
How would you know what stars should be visible?

The camera man would have to adjust the camera's settings which could be a preset on the camera to capture star light. Using star mapping software that you can buy for $50 you could easily set your location to match the moon buggy's location and see if the stars match up with the image taken by the camera man. :D

[sts60]

Wrong. Star positions alone will not tell you if you are on the Moon, or Earth, or Mars for that matter.

[bonkey]

Yes, having pictures of this resolution will convince me, along with all the other skeptics out there.

<time passes>


I'll reserve my opinion of the white blobs until I actually see them.

Consistent position you're taking there.

[softearth]

Wrong. Star positions alone will not tell you if you are on the Moon, or Earth, or Mars for that matter.

They certainly will if you have the date and time the image was taken. :D

...

[ineluki]

They're three main reason for going back to the moon:
1) Science - Better understanding our universe and how it formed.
2) Commercial - Rare materials, Tourist industry.
3) Military - Take the high ground, this is why China and the USA are currently planning to go back soon....

I would like to go back to this reasons.

1. Could you please explain this in detail. How will taking pictures of a place you already visited help you understand the universe and why?

2. What rare materials are to be collected on the moon? What is the value and how much does it cost to go there and back? Don't just say "I say so", instead provide a analysis of the projected revenue and cost.

3. What exactly is the value of a military base that is at least 360.000 km away? Again, don't just write "we need one", give us some details what could be done on the moon that can't be done easier, faster and cheaper on earth or in earth orbit.

[sts60]

They certainly will if you have the date and time the image was taken.

Really? Tell me, if I point a camera to a certain set of coordinates on the celestial sphere, what differences would I say in the postions of the stars if I was on the Earth rather than on the Moon?

[ineluki]

Using star mapping software that you can buy for $50 you could easily set your location to match the moon buggy's location and see if the stars match up with the image taken by the camera man. :D

And why couldn't NASA use that software to fake the new pictures?

[Tog]

They certainly will if you have the date and time the image was taken. :D

...

7 March, 1997 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/Epim/Astro/HB030797.jpg)
3:48 Local time.

Where was I?

Hint, the fact that it's a comet will make this a LOT easier, well at least possible.

[sts60]

And why do we talk about "$50 software" when we're talking about operations that happened over three decades ago?

Because we think all knowledge is on a computer screen, that's why :rolleyes:

[captain swoop]

If I can't Google it then I don't need to know!

[ineluki]

They're three main reason for going back to the moon:
1) Science - Better understanding our universe and how it formed.
2) Commercial - Rare materials, Tourist industry.
3) Military - Take the high ground, this is why China and the USA are currently planning to go back soon....

I would like to go back to this reasons.

1. Could you please explain this in detail. How will taking pictures of a place you already visited help you understand the universe and why?

2. What rare materials are to be collected on the moon? What is the value and how much does it cost to go there and back? Don't just say "I say so", instead provide a analysis of the projected revenue and cost.

3. What exactly is the value of a military base that is at least 360.000 km away? Again, don't just write "we need one", give us some details what could be done on the moon that can't be done easier, faster and cheaper on earth or in earth orbit.

[softearth]

I would like to go back to this reasons.

1. Could you please explain this in detail. How will taking pictures of a place you already visited help you understand the universe and why?

Perhaps you should ask NASA this question as well, since they're sending another LRO with a high resolution camera on-board in 2008. Personally, I think any and all information will help to understand the universe better in one way or another. Also, I'm sure the LRO will capture images in infrared as well.


2. What rare materials are to be collected on the moon? What is the value and how much does it cost to go there and back? Don't just say "I say so", instead provide a analysis of the projected revenue and cost.

This will depend on what they find, sorry but this is an open ended question with no real answer until some real data is collected.


3. What exactly is the value of a military base that is at least 360.000 km away? Again, don't just write "we need one", give us some details what could be done on the moon that can't be done easier, faster and cheaper on earth or in earth orbit.

Well, for one thing it would be a military base that an enemy couldn't attack very easily, therefore giving them the ultimate high ground. They would have plenty of notice of incoming weapons and troops to take the proper actions to defend the base.

It would also serve as an outpost as mankind settles outward from planet earth.

...

[Swift]

Originally Posted by softearth
Yes, having pictures of this resolution will convince me, along with all the other skeptics out there. So please tell NASA that we will accept nothing less or I'll keep posting until the year 2050.

Thanks Why? Why would that convince you and other "skeptics"? If you think that in 1969 NASA could fake the data sent from the moon and received by not just NASA but from people around the world (including other governments and ham radio operators), why don't you think they could just do it again? And I'm not just giving you a hard time softearth, I truly don't understand this?

You have still not asked this question and it is critical to the whole discussion of a future mission - why don't you believe the NASA data from the last 40 years, but will believe a future mission? It has been explained to you that your "checksum" stuff is nonsense and if you think NASA could fake it before, they could fake it again.

[sts60]

You haven't answered several dozen other questions, either, but I'd like to hear about:

Tell me, if I point a camera to a certain set of coordinates on the celestial sphere, what differences would I say in the postions of the stars if I was on the Earth rather than on the Moon?

[softearth]

They certainly will if you have the date and time the image was taken.

Really? Tell me, if I point a camera to a certain set of coordinates on the celestial sphere, what differences would I say in the postions of the stars if I was on the Earth rather than on the Moon?

Well for starters the image would be sent back in real time to help avoid fakes (with that checksum as well) and I would have the camera man include some planets within the solar system to help nail it down. :D

[softearth]

You haven't answered several dozen other questions, either, but I'd like to hear about:

Tell me, if I point a camera to a certain set of coordinates on the celestial sphere, what differences would I say in the postions of the stars if I was on the Earth rather than on the Moon?

See reply above!

[Swift]

Well for starters the image would be sent back in real time to help avoid fakes (with that checksum as well) and I would have the camera man include some planets within the solar system to help nail it down. :D
Why couldn't NASA send the fake photo up to the lunar orbiter and have it relayed back to Earth. They could claim the added couple of seconds was processing time for the on-board computer to transmit the image. Or, since the orbit is well established, NASA could send the image early, so that it would arrive back at Earth at the "right" time. I mean if this faking stuff is so easy that they could do it in 1969, without the Internet and Photoshop, it should be a piece of cake now. Do you think with their millions of engineers working on this fake that they couldn't fool you?

[softearth]

You have still not asked this question and it is critical to the whole discussion of a future mission - why don't you believe the NASA data from the last 40 years, but will believe a future mission? It has been explained to you that your "checksum" stuff is nonsense and if you think NASA could fake it before, they could fake it again.

I promise I will answer this tomorrow, I have to catch a train for New York City now!

[Grand_Lunar]

Perhaps you should ask NASA this question as well, since they're sending another LRO with a high resolution camera on-board in 2008. Personally, I think any and all information will help to understand the universe better in one way or another. Also, I'm sure the LRO will capture images in infrared as well.

The LRO's main purpose, as I understand it, is to scout the best locations for our return mission to the moon.
You know, it really helps if you do a little research on these things. Do you know how to use "search" functions, or at least what NASA's website is, and how to use it's search function there? You can find answers for yourself, you know.

Oh yes, another purpose is to smash a probe into a spot suspected of having frozen water. That will play a big role in where we land for our return mission.

[captain swoop]

Perhaps you should ask NASA this question as well, since they're sending another LRO with a high resolution camera on-board in 2008. Personally, I think any and all information will help to understand the universe better in one way or another. Also, I'm sure the LRO will capture images in infrared as well.

No one said they weren't going to take more hi res pictures, they are taking them of different areas ready for the next moon mission, not of the bits they already visited.

[Swift]

Softearth,
I assume what you would like is something like this image (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/figures/PIA08816_fig1.jpg) of the Mars rover, taken by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter? Do you believe this picture, or do you think NASA is faking it too (it was not shown at the press conference today in real time).

[Dave J]

They certainly will if you have the date and time the image was taken. :D

...

Oh my...do you understand parallax? Interstellar distances? Or am I misunderstanding the plan here?
Dave

[tofu]

Oh my...do you understand parallax? Interstellar distances? Or am I misunderstanding the plan here?
Dave

I suspect that what he was getting at was that NASA, being idiots, would just paint random white dots on the backdrop of the set, out in the desert somewhere, where the landings were faked. Then he, being smarter than anyone at NASA, would be able to use $50 software to prove that NASA was not only a bunch of idiots, but also liars.

The idea that NASA, while faking the landings, would use the same $50 bit of software to prepare the set, out in the desert somewhere, where the landings faked, has not occured to softearth.

at least, thats how I read it.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Well, for starters we would have the software checksums, and the challange/response system to help prevent this from happing.
You say you merely want the raw data, but now you're talking about open-sourcing the software used on the probe...

Edit: Actually, after completely reading the last page, I'm under the impression that what softearth really wants is a LO that anyone can personally demand pictures from at any time, and have that data sent directly from the orbiter to them. :eh:

[Grand_Lunar]

Actually, after completely reading the last page, I'm under the impression that what softearth really wants is a LO that anyone can personally demand pictures from at any time, and have that data sent directly from the orbiter to them.

I wonder if he has the computer power to process that data. :rolleyes:

[tofu]

I wonder if he has the computer power to process that data. :rolleyes:

Duh, the probe will just run a web server. So you take your laptop outside on a clear night and join the wireless network with SID: "LRO" The probe also has a DHCP server to give your laptop an IP and a DNS server so that you can go to http://probe.space/liveview/ and get the current image in jpg format. And every page should have a guest book so that you can leave comments when you find temples and faces and stuff in the images.

And to make sure that nasa isn't faking the images, you should be able to use the View Source option on your web browser and then scroll to the bottom of the page, where there will be an HTML comment that says, "this is not fake."

[Sigma_Orionis]

Ok. Softearth, a few questions:

1) What do you think a "checksum" is?

2) Why do you think a "checksum" would help guarantee that the images were taken by the LRO when it's orbiting the moon?

3) What kind of "checksum" would be used? CRC32? MD5? SHA-1? HAVAL? RIPEMD?

4) What do you think a "Challenge/Response" system is?

5) Why do you think a "Challenge/Response" would help guarantee that the images were taken by the LRO when it's orbiting the moon?

6) What kind of "Challenge/Response" would be used? OPIE? S/KEY?

7) Why do you think a Timestamp can guarantee that the images would be taken by the LRO when is orbiting the moon?

[Sigma_Orionis]

Duh, the probe will just run a web server. So you take your laptop outside on a clear night and join the wireless network with SID: "LRO" The probe also has a DHCP server to give your laptop an IP and a DNS server so that you can go to http://probe.space/liveview/ and get the current image in jpg format. And every page should have a guest book so that you can leave comments when you find temples and faces and stuff in the images.

And to make sure that nasa isn't faking the images, you should be able to use the View Source option on your web browser and then scroll to the bottom of the page, where there will be an HTML comment that says, "this is not fake."

Hmmm why not have the webserver use HTTPS and sign the pages with an X.509 Certificate from.... ummmmm a trusted third party like........ Bart Sibrel? :D

[SirThoreth]

So the answer is to PM the mods/admin.

Which I (and I'm sure others) have done...


Ayup.



Since I have seen no evidence of moderator intervention, then I must assume that softearth's "posting style" is acceptable behaviour for this board.

Which blows me away, since his posts are not only condescending, but make frequent use of ad hom attacks.

[tofu]

7) Why do you think a Timestamp can guarantee that the images would be taken by the LRO when is orbiting the moon?


I am reluctant to speak for my colleague, Mr. SE. However, I think this one is pretty easy to figure out. He envisions a probe orbiting the moon and NOT taking pictures. He knows where the probe is at all times, so he can use his $50 astronomy program to determine that, for example, the probe is now over Mare Crisium.

So he selects some random time to strike. He calls up the probe and directs it to take a picture and transmit it to him. The probe dutifully snaps the photo, timestamps it, and sends it to skeptical Mr. SE.

The assumption that SE is making here is that the combination of these things, checksums, timestamps, and surprise transmission requests, guarantees that NASA can't get their guilty little fingers into the mix and screw up the data.

Unfortunately, Mr. SE has not lived the life on your average computer hacker, and so has not arranged his thinking processes in such a way as to facilitate poking holes in the best laid plans of mice and men (such as the plan detailed above).

I am also reluctant to help him by suggesting how NASA might easily circumvent such a system, but I guess that if I don't do it, you will - right? Basically, it works like this: NASA, it turns out, employs at least three or four scientists and engineers who, it turns out, can calculate the correct angular size of a LM at the altitude the LRO will orbit. (presumably, the employ of such divinely talented individuals is useful when, you know, firing rockets into space). Anyway, NASA prepares ahead of time an overlay image consisting of a few light pixels and maybe even some random rover tracks just to make SE extra happy. That overlay image is stored in the LRO's memory. If a call comes up to take a picture of the moon, the LRO checks its own navigational system and if it determines that it's currently overflying an apollo landing site, it simple adds the overlay onto the image it get from its camera. *then* the LRO computes a checksum of the (now fake) image, and adds a timestamp to it and transmits it to SE, who is none the wiser (no pun intended).

The bottom line is, even if NASA jumped through every hoop that SE demands, it is still possible to accuse them of tomfoolery. Which means that we just have to fall back on all the *existing* evidence for apollo. It is that existing evidence that is overwhelming and totally convincing.

[sts60]

Well for starters the image would be sent back in real time

First of all, LRO isn't a "real-time" or even a "near-real-time" imager. (I've worked on commercial high-resolution Earth imagers, BTW.)

to help avoid fakes

You cannot tell the difference between Earth and the Moon by star positions. Period.

(with that checksum as well)

No. A checksum has nothing to do with identifying an image. If you think throwing out high-techy-sounding words bolsters your argument, you're mistaken.

and I would have the camera man include some planets within the solar system to help nail it down.

The maximum possible parallax of a planet between vantage points about Earth and Moon is a fraction of a degree. Assuming you could register the planet's position against the stellar background to the required accuracy, it would still be quite straightforward to simply add a few pixels of planet-dot to a real image before it is transmitted.

You still haven't got it. You're not getting closer, either.

[tofu]

to help avoid fakes

You cannot tell the difference between Earth and the Moon by star positions. Period.


Again, I don't think that's what he's getting at. I believe his assumption is that NASA is so utterly incompetent that they will just randomly sprinkle a few stars on the background. Then SE will use his $50 astronomy program to show that none of the stars are even close to the positions of the actual stars that were visible at the time the photo was taken. And then the massive world-wide conspiracy will crumble and SE will be the hero of the truth movement and (presumably) able to do two chicks at the same time.

Because, you know, NASA is able to launch communications satellites and weather satellites and build space stations and stuff, but they are so stupid that they would never think to use the $50 astronomy program to correctly position the stars in a fake photograph.

[Gillianren]

As far as the moon buggy goes, I would ask the camera man to adjust and point the camera to the stars so I could check their location with star charts to verify their location.

Camera man? I thought this was going to be an unmanned probe!

And no one else has mentioned this, so maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't a probe looking at the moon's surface from orbit be pointed, you know, straight down? I mean, you'd certainly get more of the actual, you know, surface in the shots that way, anyway. And unless, dear Softearth, you're implying that there are stars on the Moon's surface . . . .

[tofu]

In the interests of truthiness, I must once again rise to SE's defence and point out that he was responding to this:

What about if the new mission was to send a buggy with a couple of guys and a video camera out to teh actual landin site, wouldn't that be ok?

So no, Gillianren, we aren't talking about an unmanned probe. :-)

However, I might suggest to SE that having a human being on the probe might be one extra (equally useless) hoop that you could demand NASA jump through. Since the probe isn't commng back to Earth, someone would have to "take one for the team" though. But it's all the name of ending the conspiracy. I'll actually volunteer, even though I know that if I looked through a pair of binoculars and saw the LM myself, you would just claim that I was a paid NASA flunky.

[Grand_Lunar]

Which blows me away, since his posts are not only condescending, but make frequent use of ad hom attacks.

Someone's bound to notice.

He could be reported (the red triangle thing).

[Van Rijn]

I plan to answer all relevant questions when I get the time to do so.


Wouldn't this be a good point to suspend the thread, to be reopened when softearth is ready to answer the many relevant questions?

[tsig]

Never believe anything you hear and only half of what you see. :D

Then I disbelive you.

[SirThoreth]

Someone's bound to notice.

He could be reported (the red triangle thing).

That's the point - he has been. R.A.F. strongly implied that he did, and I did, as well.

[stutefish]

Maybe the mods are all busy looking for JayUtah?

[Sigma_Orionis]

I am reluctant to speak for my colleague, Mr. SE. However, I think this one is pretty easy to figure out. He envisions a probe orbiting the moon and NOT taking pictures. He knows where the probe is at all times, so he can use his $50 astronomy program to determine that, for example, the probe is now over Mare Crisium.

So he selects some random time to strike. He calls up the probe and directs it to take a picture and transmit it to him. The probe dutifully snaps the photo, timestamps it, and sends it to skeptical Mr. SE.

The assumption that SE is making here is that the combination of these things, checksums, timestamps, and surprise transmission requests, guarantees that NASA can't get their guilty little fingers into the mix and screw up the data.

Unfortunately, Mr. SE has not lived the life on your average computer hacker, and so has not arranged his thinking processes in such a way as to facilitate poking holes in the best laid plans of mice and men (such as the plan detailed above).

I am also reluctant to help him by suggesting how NASA might easily circumvent such a system, but I guess that if I don't do it, you will - right? Basically, it works like this: NASA, it turns out, employs at least three or four scientists and engineers who, it turns out, can calculate the correct angular size of a LM at the altitude the LRO will orbit. (presumably, the employ of such divinely talented individuals is useful when, you know, firing rockets into space). Anyway, NASA prepares ahead of time an overlay image consisting of a few light pixels and maybe even some random rover tracks just to make SE extra happy. That overlay image is stored in the LRO's memory. If a call comes up to take a picture of the moon, the LRO checks its own navigational system and if it determines that it's currently overflying an apollo landing site, it simple adds the overlay onto the image it get from its camera. *then* the LRO computes a checksum of the (now fake) image, and adds a timestamp to it and transmits it to SE, who is none the wiser (no pun intended).

The bottom line is, even if NASA jumped through every hoop that SE demands, it is still possible to accuse them of tomfoolery. Which means that we just have to fall back on all the *existing* evidence for apollo. It is that existing evidence that is overwhelming and totally convincing.

I see, interesting perspective. Maybe the three engineers and/or scientists at NASA could whip up some pictures of an episode of South Park where Gumby meets Barney the Purple Dinosaur and time stamp them with the exact time Mr. Skeptic queried the LRO and then show them at a Press Conference after the end of the mission after Mr. Skeptic has certified that the Apollo Project actually did what it was devised to do because he has the images that prove it. Reminds me of a game (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/8304) designed by John Nash.....

[Van Rijn]

That's the irony: Given the nature of the evidence requested and the technology available today that did not exist at the time of the moon landings, this evidence would be far easier to fake than the existing evidence. Of course, that isn't really the point. The real point is to always ask for something other than what is already available, and to place unrealistic requirements on what would be acceptable. That way, even if it is made available it can be denied.

[Grand_Lunar]

Maybe the mods are all busy looking for JayUtah?

Yeah, what happened to that guy? Haven't seen him since he paid "Loose Change" a visit on the moon hoax forum there, which was a few months ago.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yeah, what happened to that guy? Haven't seen him since he paid "Loose Change" a visit on the moon hoax forum there, which was a few months ago.
Mob hit? :shifty:

[fezzic]

If it hasn't been mentioned.

"Independant verification" as Softearth has said does not exist for the Apollo moon landings can't possibly exist because, when you think about it, every possible source is discounted or presumed to be in the conspiracy. Records of the program, telemetry, moon rocks, testimony of the participants, etc., are all waved away. The fact that foreign countries (quite a few of them not friends of the US) and scientists in those countries all [maybe a sweeping generalization] agree that the landings happened is waved aside with the unsupported assumption that they were bought off and such. Really, the whole world of scientists and [sometimes hostile] foreign governments?

So where would the "independant verification" possibly come from when every period source of such is dismissed? To be able to make the claim that one has "independantly verified" the moon landings would have required "someone" else to have duplicated [a significant effort for even a government] the Apollo moon landings at least to the extent of having unmanned probes on the scene able to take pictures and such. Even then, because that "someone" was there and able to verify everything makes that "someone" unfit to verify anything since they must obviously be in on it.

I keep thinking this is Catch-22 logic. Let's see.

If you are trustworthy you can verify the moon landings. But if you verify the moon landings, you cannot be trustworthy.

This is not to say that Softearth shouldn't pursue establishing a downlink antenna to receive the imagery telemetry. Put together a group to analyize it all and produce images. I just don't think that it will settle anything.

[Maksutov]

[edit] I just don't think that it will settle anything.The important thing to remember is, there's nothing to be settled that wasn't settled on July 20, 1969, and five times after that.

[Grand_Lunar]

The important thing to remember is, there's nothing to be settled that wasn't settled on July 20, 1969, and five times after that.

You're not counting 13? HBers throw out claims about that mission as well.

[PhantomWolf]

I'm not sure the point of adding more questions at this point, since I still have 25 questions that have been repeatedly ignored. I think with the other questions now asked by others, the list is easily close to 50 direct questions that softearth is totally ignoring. Heck I'd be happy with an "I don't know" to most of mine, but he's not even bothering to acknowledge my posts now. Seems rather funny that someone who is "just looking for evidence" isn't willing enough to challenge their own beliefs by answering a few questions. Oh well, he's only fooling himself now, I doubt there is a single lucker out there at this point that hasn't been abole to see through his ridiculous actions.

[Grand_Lunar]

Mob hit? :shifty:


For all we know, that could be true, given the nature of those "truthers".

This gives me an idea.....

[Gillianren]

Jay says he's busy at work. That's as much information as I have.

[sts60]

Yeah, that was a few weeks ago.

The real point is to always ask for something other than what is already available, and to place unrealistic requirements on what would be acceptable.

Oh, of course. I know that, and I'm sure everybody else does. This is basically batting practice.

[Kodiak]

All these replies yet still no LO image showing the lunar modules or rovers on the surface of the moon in over 35 years. WOW! :boohoo:


These images you ask for are YOUR idea of ultimate proof. Just like the "raw" data you ask for, which makes no sense what so ever. NASA did the missions, the data comes from them. Whether it is raw or not, it comes from them, what dont you understand about this? If you think they are dishonest, it doesnt matter if it is "raw" or not does it? After all, they would fake "any" data wouldnt they?

The rest of us already have all the proof we need. You choose to ignore this evidence. The ironic thing is that the proof you want would be some of the easiest to fake.

I honestly hope you are just playing the devils advocate and really arent as ignorant as you appear to be.

What irritates me the most is the complete disrespect you show for the people who risked their lives, and LOST their lives for these missions.

Go ahead Softearth, reply to this and use another "smiley" that shows your complete disrespect and arrogance for everyone on here who made an honest attempt to help you out. I just hope that when you do, everyone will follow my lead by NOT replying to anymore of your nonsence.

Yes, you win, I have had enough of your **.

[Extravoice]

Jay says he's busy at work. That's as much information as I have.

Yes, but the real question is, "Where is 'hub?" ;)

/Sorry for the threadjack.

[SirThoreth]

Yes, but the real question is, "Where is 'hub?" ;)

/Sorry for the threadjack.

Think he got banned, and his account deleted. All the posts I've seen by him, currently, appear to have been posted by no one at all - there's no username, etc.

[Maksutov]

Think he got banned, and his account deleted. All the posts I've seen by him, currently, appear to have been posted by no one at all - there's no username, etc.Did you search for "HUb'"? I just did one and found his last post was April 7.

[ToSeek]

For the record, softearth was warned (via PM) at 2:28 PM EDT October 6 to stop using ad hominems. If he persists in this or any objectionable behavior, feel free to report it. However, so far he has not posted at all since that time.

[Grand_Lunar]

Jay says he's busy at work. That's as much information as I have.

Ah yes. He must spread the disinformation to keep the HBer crowds at bay! :D

He does aviation work, right?

[jaydeehess]

Of course the LO would have a preplanned orbit laid out, but the variances of the coordinates and the actual date/time stamp would be sufficient to discourage preloaded fake images to be sent instead of the real image since all the landscape features and shadows need to correspond with the raw data all in real time. IMHO


As I mentioned earlier all that is needed is insert images of the items left on the Moon. Since to great detail is required these, and the neccessary sotware to know where to insert them(what the location of them on the Lunar surface should be), would take just a few Kb of memory.

A checksum??!! what would a checksum do to show that an image was inserted??

I may be wrong but a checksum only indicates that a sequence has been corrupted ie. by transmission noise.

[Van Rijn]

A checksum??!! what would a checksum do to show that an image was inserted??

I may be wrong but a checksum only indicates that a sequence has been corrupted ie. by transmission noise.

Detecting data corruption is a common use for checksums. A checksum could also be used to detect trivial deliberate data modification after the checksum was generated. (As a simple example, I've seen save game files with checksums.) Of course, if the data is modifed before the checksum is generated or deliberately modified afterwards but the checksum appropriately changed as well, the checksum won't tell you anything useful. (And I've successfully changed save game files with checksums, after a bit of research.)

[jaydeehess]

Yeah, I've thought of that use as well. Motorola includes a checksum on its satellite and digital cable reciever authorization numbers to indicate whether or not the number is a valid one.

How SE thinks a checksum generated by the people who are creating the data stream will help detect impropriety by the very same people, is beyond me.

[softearth]

For the record, softearth was warned (via PM) at 2:28 PM EDT October 6 to stop using ad hominems. If he persists in this or any objectionable behavior, feel free to report it. However, so far he has not posted at all since that time.

To the board:

I sincerely apologize for this action and I hope you all can forgive me for it. The Moderator also stated in my warning that a few others besides myself were also warned of similar actions towards me in this thread and I do forgive them. I realize that this subject matter may produce strong emotions on both sides of the argument and my comment was in no way warranted.

Now to address this comment with a proper rebuttal; ;)


Originally Posted by AGN Fuel
I can only hope that I am never in court when you are a jury member. I can imagine the debate in the jury room - "Yes, I am aware that evidence has been tendered that indicates that the accused was in a different state when the murder was committed. I am also aware that he has never owned a gun, has no idea how to load or fire one, has no motive whatever for the murder and his doctor has testified that he was in a coma in hospital at the time. However, unless I can see footage of the accused not firing the gun, I remain suspicious. Why can't he produce the footage? Frankly, I think he's guilty until proven innocent."

To be honest, I think that your obtuseness is deliberate. I don't find your act particularly amusing though.

If he was indeed in a hospital with a coma, then perhaps we could see some video evidence from the security carmeras that are placed around the hospital.

You say we do in fact have videos of him, closeup shots within the hospital taken the day he was here, and he also left his car in the parking lot and it's still here in the hospital parking lot today.

I respond with the question;
"Is there any evidence to verify that his car is still in the hospital parking lot today?"

How does this question justify the response of;


"However, unless I can see footage of the accused not firing the gun, I remain suspicious. Why can't he produce the footage? Frankly, I think he's guilty until proven innocent."

"To be honest, I think that your obtuseness is deliberate. I don't find your act particularly amusing though."

Well, as you can see it doesn't, and the whole reason I started this thread was to discuss lunar orbiter evidence either from past or future missions in refernce to the Apollo moon landings.

...

[Maksutov]

[edit]I realize that this subject matter may produce strong emotions on both sides of the argument and my comment was in no way warranted.

Now to address this comment with a proper rebuttal; ;) ...No strong emotions here as the matter was settled on July 20, 1969. Nor is there an argument. A discussion perhaps, which engenders arguments from both sides, but, this language being what it is, these "arguments" aren't the same as an "argument" flaring up between two belligerent parties.

Instead this variety of argument is typically a well-considered exposition, supported by objective evidence, that explains why the person(s) thinks the position adopted has a higher probability of accurately describing and predicting natural phenomena than the position adopted by the other person(s). This definition is best illustrated by the phrase "arguing the point"

The rational method illustrated above is essentially a dialog, which can only be productive if both parties participate actively and sincerely. If one party chooses to ignore all or some of the propositions, questions, et al, of the other party, then there's no dialog, and this method of reaching a conclusion fails, to the detriment of the party who chooses not to respond.

In short, instead of providing a rebuttal to a specific comment which may or may not have violated the board rules, how about responding to all the various objective evidence and questions about your rather untenable position that the various participants in this thread have posted?

[softearth]

You have still not asked this question and it is critical to the whole discussion of a future mission - why don't you believe the NASA data from the last 40 years,

I do believe in some of the evidence of the Apollo missions, however I have my doubts about some of it as well. But this thread wasn't started to discuss moon rocks, soil and core samples, radio signals etc., but was started to address the main question of why there isn't any evidence during the past 35 years showing the lunar modules and rovers of the Apollo missions on the surface of the moon, not from any space agency, including NASA.

After reviewing all of the threads that exist on this site, I would suggest that people with comments concerning moon rocks, etc. should place them on the appropriate threads where those issues are being discussed so that they will be relevant to that thread(s).


but will believe a future mission?

Having independent evidence to verify something is obviously the optimal way to settle an issue, but if you can't find an independent party, you must at minimum design in checks and balances that would help to reduce the argument of having faked or doctored evidence provided by the single source of information.


It has been explained to you that your "checksum" stuff is nonsense and if you think NASA could fake it before, they could fake it again.

Again, if forced to use a single source of information you must do everything possible to ensure that the data is 100% valid and unaltered. Some people on here say that checksums aren't enough to do this, so perhaps they have better ideas to help guarantee the integrity of the images that will be sent back by NASA in 2008. :think:

...

[softearth]

No strong emotions here as the matter was settled on July 20, 1969. Nor is there an argument. A discussion perhaps, which engenders arguments from both sides, but, this language being what it is, these "arguments" aren't the same as an "argument" flaring up between two belligerent parties.

Instead this variety of argument is typically a well-considered exposition, supported by objective evidence, that explains why the person(s) thinks the position adopted has a higher probability of accurately describing and predicting natural phenomena than the position adopted by the other person(s). This definition is best illustrated by the phrase "arguing the point"

The rational method illustrated above is essentially a dialog, which can only be productive if both parties participate actively and sincerely. If one party chooses to ignore all or some of the propositions, questions, et al, of the other party, then there's no dialog, and this method of reaching a conclusion fails, to the detriment of the party who chooses not to respond.

In short, instead of providing a rebuttal to a specific comment which may or may not have violated the board rules, how about responding to all the various objective evidence and questions about your rather untenable position that the various participants in this thread have posted?

See above...

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Maksutov http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=841238#post841238)
No strong emotions here as the matter was settled on July 20, 1969. Nor is there an argument. A discussion perhaps, which engenders arguments from both sides, but, this language being what it is, these "arguments" aren't the same as an "argument" flaring up between two belligerent parties.

Instead this variety of argument is typically a well-considered exposition, supported by objective evidence, that explains why the person(s) thinks the position adopted has a higher probability of accurately describing and predicting natural phenomena than the position adopted by the other person(s). This definition is best illustrated by the phrase "arguing the point"

The rational method illustrated above is essentially a dialog, which can only be productive if both parties participate actively and sincerely. If one party chooses to ignore all or some of the propositions, questions, et al, of the other party, then there's no dialog, and this method of reaching a conclusion fails, to the detriment of the party who chooses not to respond.

In short, instead of providing a rebuttal to a specific comment which may or may not have violated the board rules, how about responding to all the various objective evidence and questions about your rather untenable position that the various participants in this thread have posted?See above...
"See above..."?

I've noticed you've used that expression when the referenced poster presents information you can't deal with or refute.

That's no answer.

"Coy" doesn't work when examining things scientifically.

Haven't you learned anything from your near-banning?

How about a direct response?

At least this thread has some humor-value, thanks to the OPer.

[Musashi]

I do believe in some of the evidence of the Apollo missions, however I have my doubts about some of it as well. But this thread wasn't started to discuss moon rocks, soil and core samples, radio signals etc., but was started to address the main question of why there isn't any evidence during the past 35 years showing the lunar modules and rovers of the Apollo missions on the surface of the moon, not from any space agency, including NASA.



So, what you're saying is, if one takes in all the evidence, it is obvious we went to the moon, but, as a thought experiment, if one discards all the evidence, there is no proof? Basically?

[softearth]

"See above..."?

I've noticed you've used that expression when the referenced poster presents information you can't deal with or refute.

That's no answer. "Coy" doesn't work when examining things scientifically.

Haven't you learned from your near-banning?

How about a direct response?

We all agree that there is no solid evidence from any space agency on planet earth that has ever verified the existence of the lunar modules or rovers of the Apollo missions on the surface of the moon using lunar orbiters in over 35 years.

Some good reasons were given as to why no evidence exist, however, I'm now into discussing what methods and/protocols could be implemented for the LRO scheduled for launch in 2008 by NASA to help quell skeptics of the Apollo missions.

Again, if forced to use a single source of information you must do everything possible to ensure that the data is 100% valid and unaltered.

I will only address questions relevant to this subject matter, so if you have a question relating to how NASA can help to guarantee the integrity of the images, then ask away. :)

...

[softearth]

So, what you're saying is, if one takes in all the evidence, it is obvious we went to the moon, but, as a thought experiment, if one discards all the evidence, there is no proof? Basically?

Remember, all of the evidence means everything except Lunar Orbiter images from any space agency in the past 35 years. :shifty:

...

[bonkey]

We all agree that there is no solid evidence from any space agency on planet earth that has ever verified the existence of the lunar modules or rovers of the Apollo missions on the surface of the moon using lunar orbiters in over 35 years.

Yes....



Some good reasons were given as to why no evidence exist,

I assume you mean no evidence of the above-mentioned type



however, I'm now into discussing what methods and/protocols could be implemented for the LRO scheduled for launch in 2008 by NASA to help quell skeptics of the Apollo missions.

None. The sketics of the Apollo missions should be pointed at the evidence which does exist and told that this is sufficient to answer their skepticism.

The existence or non-existence of other evidence only becomes relevant once this is done and once those skeptics have shown an ability and willingness to address the totality of the already-available information.



Again, if forced to use a single source of information you must do everything possible to ensure that the data is 100% valid and unaltered.

Protecting from unintentional corruption, yes, one should do this.
Protecting from deliberate falsification at source is, however, a pointless exercise.



I will only address questions relevant to this subject matter, so if you have a question relating to how NASA can help to guarantee the integrity of the images, then ask away. :)

I have a question about why NASA should spend a single cent on this, because the basic premise is that NASA should spent money to ensure that they can convince others that their data hasn't been deliberately falsified by themselves.

Why do NASA need to do this at all? The only people who have problems with existant NASAs data - such as yourself - don't use it anyway.

[PhantomWolf]

however, I'm now into discussing what methods and/protocols could be implemented for the LRO scheduled for launch in 2008 by NASA to help quell skeptics of the Apollo missions.

Why? NASA is sending the missions there to look for new landing sites and future locations for possible bases, why should they bother pandering to a group of people that can't understand that stars don't show up in photos of sunlit landscape?

[Maksutov]

I do believe in some of the evidence of the Apollo missions, however I have my doubts about some of it as well. But this thread wasn't started to discuss moon rocks, soil and core samples, radio signals etc., but was started to address the main question of why there isn't any evidence during the past 35 years showing the lunar modules and rovers of the Apollo missions on the surface of the moon, not from any space agency, including NASA....This just proves that the mines in Roxbury, CT don't exist and have never been explored by man.

It's been well over 35 years since there was any evidence showing the existence of the shafts and descent ladders of these mines below the surface of Connecticut, not only from any mining company, including the United States Mining Company, but even from independent sources.

Therefore the existence of these mines is definitely in doubt. :rolleyes:


Are you familiar with the term "thin ice"? You might get off that if you answer the questions put to you in this thread.

[softearth]

Protecting from unintentional corruption, yes, one should do this.
Protecting from deliberate falsification at source is, however, a pointless exercise.

POINTLESS?

So what you're saying is that everyone should always trust a single source of information?


I have a question about why NASA should spend a single cent on this, because the basic premise is that NASA should spent money to ensure that they can convince others that their data hasn't been deliberately falsified by themselves.

Why do NASA need to do this at all? The only people who have problems with existant NASAs data - such as yourself - don't use it anyway.

If NASA provided some images of the lunar modules and rovers from the LRO in 2008, I would use it.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Maksutov http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=841268#post841268)
"See above..."?

I've noticed you've used that expression when the referenced poster presents information you can't deal with or refute.

That's no answer. "Coy" doesn't work when examining things scientifically.

Haven't you learned from your near-banning?

How about a direct response?
We all agree that there is no solid evidence from any space agency on planet earth that has ever verified the existence of the lunar modules or rovers of the Apollo missions on the surface of the moon using lunar orbiters in over 35 years.Huh?

"We all agree"?

Provide some evidence of that.

If I don't agree, then it definitely isn't "we all agree".

I guess your position has become so tenuous that you have to resort now to the "big lie" in the hope that folks won't think about the ** you're proposing.


Some good reasons were given as to why no evidence exist, No, they weren't.

You're getting very near the deep end now.

Careful.
however, I'm now into discussing what methods and/protocols could be implemented for the LRO scheduled for launch in 2008 by NASA to help quell skeptics of the Apollo missions.NASA and we who know what happened could care less about such things.

Careful when inflating your ego, it might hurt when it pops!


Again, if forced to use a single source of information you must do everything possible to ensure that the data is 100% valid and unaltered.As with checksums, you don't know much about science, do you?


I will only address questions relevant to this subject matter, so if you have a question relating to how NASA can help to guarantee the integrity of the images, then ask away. :)

...Setting up your own standards, eh?

False premises as subject matter invalidate themselves. No questions are required.

Quite a loop you've got yourself into. Once you get out, if ever, let us know how it was.

PS: Should we arrange a meeting between softearth and Rick Sobie?

BTW, I thought I had seen some funny threads before, but this one is right up there with the all-time great BABB BAUT comedies! Look out, Moon dwarf Bryson!

[softearth]

This just proves that the mines in Roxbury, CT don't exist and have never been explored by man.

It's been well over 35 years since there was any evidence showing the existence of the shafts and descent ladders of these mines below the surface of Connecticut, not only from any mining company, including the United States Mining Company, but even from independent sources.

Therefore the existence of these mines is definitely in doubt. :rolleyes:


Are you familiar with the term "thin ice"? You might get off that if you answer the questions put to you in this thread.

If in fact, someone questioned the evidence of the mines being there, they could indeed ask an independent party to verify that the mines exist.

How is that wrong? If a mining company were to buy the rights of the mine, I'm sure they would verify that the mines do in fact exist. I know I would!

...

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Maksutov http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=841286#post841286)
This just proves that the mines in Roxbury, CT don't exist and have never been explored by man.

It's been well over 35 years since there was any evidence showing the existence of the shafts and descent ladders of these mines below the surface of Connecticut, not only from any mining company, including the United States Mining Company, but even from independent sources.

Therefore the existence of these mines is definitely in doubt. :rolleyes:


Are you familiar with the term "thin ice"? You might get off that if you answer the questions put to you in this thread.
If in fact, someone questioned the evidence of the mines being there, they could indeed ask an independent party to verify that the mines exist.

How is that wrong? If a mining company were to buy the rights of the mine, I'm sure they would verify that the mines do in fact exist. I know I would!

...What mines? There aren't any mines in Roxbury, CT.

[softearth]

What mines? There aren't any mines in Roxbury, CT.

I'm glad you agree with my logic. Thanks ;)

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Maksutov http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=841297#post841297)
What mines? There aren't any mines in Roxbury, CT.
I'm glad you agree with my logic. Thanks ;)As one with first-hand knowledge in both cases, I'm glad to see you concede your point. http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4879/iconbiggrin1kg.gif

OK, on to another thread.

[Extravoice]

A checksum??!! what would a checksum do to show that an image was inserted??

I think Softearth may actually be referring to a Digital Watermark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermark). Although I'm not very familiar with the technology, I don't think it could be used for his purpose because NASA would have control over the image prior to the addition of the watermark.

[bonkey]

POINTLESS?

So what you're saying is that everyone should always trust a single source of information?
No, I'm saying that any "non-tamper" mechanism cannot be implemented and run by the single-source you refer to.

If they want to fake the data, all it does is require that they also circumvent the anti-tampering and fake that as well. Unless the faking of the anti-tampering measures is a greater challenge then the faking of whatever it is they're supposedly going to fake...then it doesn't even signify as added complexity.

The data can be verified independantly, but only by using the same types of validation techniques which have verified the existant data. You reject these techniques.

If they don't want to fake the data, then the anti-tampering serves no purpose.



If NASA provided some images of the lunar modules and rovers from the LRO in 2008, I would use it.

You've already stated on this thread that it would satisfy your sckepticism and that you'd judge how good it was after you saw it.

You've also shown an existing proclivity for discarding existant evidence because you have decided its not sufficient for you, on non-scientifically-valid grounds.

Your claim to be willing to use this data is, thus, entirely suspect. Having said that, I'm sure NASA would be only too delighted to consider your request if you offer to pay for the costs of obtaining those pictures.

[Thomas(believer)]

It wouldn't surprise me if the chinese will be the first to make detailed pictures of american hardware on the moon as part of their space-race.
Not that it would change the mind of hoax-believers. It will probably give more food for their thoughts.

I wouldn't mind though. I think it is about time for google-moon, google-mars.
And as with google-earth, I get quickly unsatisfied with the poor resolution.
I need more, more, more resolution
:D

[softearth]

This is a call for help for anyone that can provide technologies that would guarantee that the images returned from the Lunar Orbiter scheduled for launch in 2008 are tamper proof.

If anyone has an idea on how this can be done, it would help to quell all the skeptics of the Apollo moon landings. This same technology could also be used on other spacecraft from different space agencies to insure that all data being received and studied by scientist from around the world is 100% reliable and trustworthy.

We would of course have to contact NASA and ask them if they could incorporate this technology on the Lunar Orbiter set for launch in 2008, so think fast.

...

[Thomas(believer)]

Softearth
Do you have reasons to believe that this (http://www.imagequest3d.com/cgi-bin/ImageFolio4/imageFolio.cgi?action=view&link=aquatic/chordata/osteichthyes&image=PJH00074.jpg&img=32&search=zxc001&cat=all&tt=&bool=and)
is fake. I don't think so. Don't forget that this creature is supposed to live 800m under water. Do you know how high the pressure is at that depth? Well, I don't, but I am sure it very high. How high do you expect that your changes are that you will ever be floating around at 800m depth in comparison that you will ever walk on the moon? Why do you except some things so easily and is it so hard to believe in "man walking on moon"?
The many people that work at these projects are intelligent, serious people, with a lot of respect of their work, living in a free country. Do you really think they are fooling you or let themselves to be fooled?
I don't think so.

[tofu]

I think it is about time for google-moon

They are way ahead of you.
http://moon.google.com/



This is a call for help for anyone that can provide technologies that would guarantee that the images returned from the Lunar Orbiter scheduled for launch in 2008 are tamper proof.

If NASA ever touches the LRO (and since they own it, they are going to touch it) then it will be possible for hoax believers to claim that the images are fake. If the ESA launches a probe, hoax believers will claim that the ESA is in bed with NASA (this is what they have claimed about Mars images from the ESA). If China or Russia or Japan or anyone gets images of the Moon, hoax believers will claim they have been pressured by the Imperial US Government to support NASA's lie.

The real problem SE, is that (as usual) you just have trouble understanding how things work. Let me give you an example:

Right now, all around the world, there are countless archeologists looking for remains of dinosaurs. The trouble is, it's possible to create a fake fossil. It's been done several times. Piltdown man is the most famous example, but more recently there have been a significant number of fakes coming out of China:

http://www.paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm

You're all upset because "there is no independent verification of where this fossil came from!!!" A paleontologist could:

a) outright fake the fossil as with Piltdown man
b) assemble fossils from different animals (so that, for example, he can claim to have found a bird with a reptile-like tail)
c) go to a market in China and buy a fossil and then plant it somewhere else so that he can claim to have found it.

OMG there is no independent verification to prevent any of this!! We should have people following these paleontologists around at all times, right? Wrong. This is just something that we have to live with. Other scientists scrutinize the fossils and the other evidence presented. That's just how it works.

It's the same with Apollo. Some things could be faked. That doesn't mean they were.



If anyone has an idea on how this can be done, it would help to quell all the skeptics of the Apollo moon landings.

It will do absolutely nothing to "quell skeptics." We've been through this before with the images of the face on Mars. Don't you remember? We now have very high resolution images of the face, and people just claim those images are fakes.



This same technology could also be used on other spacecraft from different space agencies to insure that all data being received and studied by scientist from around the world is 100% reliable and trustworthy.

This is kind of ridiculous, don't you think? What happens if I fake data from a satellite? Forget images for a moment, let's use a real-world example. Let's say that my pet theory is that gamma-ray bursts are coming from inside the milkyway galaxy. To support my pet theory, I make a satellite, the HETE satellite, that will return FAKE data showing most of the GBRs in the galactic plane. Great. Now I've got my fake data and everyone believes me.

But wait. Now someone launches another satellite, the Swift sat. It can also detect GBRs. It's going to reveal the truth. So now I've got to make sure that it's data is false as well. After that comes HETE-2. I better make sure it return fake data. And this is going to continue forever and ever. I'm just constantly digging a deeper hole for myself.

What happens if NASA fakes images from the LRO? They'd better make darn sure that the Japanese probe returns fake data or everyone is going to find out what NASA did. And the Chinese - they'll have to be pressured into doing the same thing. It's just a constant, never ending problem. Nobody, not even a vast government conspiracy, could keep up with all that.

[tofu]

Softearth
Do you have reasons to believe that this (http://www.imagequest3d.com/cgi-bin/ImageFolio4/imageFolio.cgi?action=view&link=aquatic/chordata/osteichthyes&image=PJH00074.jpg&img=32&search=zxc001&cat=all&tt=&bool=and)
is fake.

very good! An even better example than mine!

[Thomas(believer)]

They are way ahead of you.
http://moon.google.com/

I know that one. Bad resolution. If you want to zoom in a little bit, all you get is cheese. :)

[softearth]

They are way ahead of you.
http://moon.google.com/

If NASA ever touches the LRO (and since they own it, they are going to touch it) then it will be possible for hoax believers to claim that the images are fake. If the ESA launches a probe, hoax believers will claim that the ESA is in bed with NASA (this is what they have claimed about Mars images from the ESA). If China or Russia or Japan or anyone gets images of the Moon, hoax believers will claim they have been pressured by the Imperial US Government to support NASA's lie.

The real problem SE, is that (as usual) you just have trouble understanding how things work. Let me give you an example:

Right now, all around the world, there are countless archeologists looking for remains of dinosaurs. The trouble is, it's possible to create a fake fossil. It's been done several times. Piltdown man is the most famous example, but more recently there have been a significant number of fakes coming out of China:

http://www.paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm

You're all upset because "there is no independent verification of where this fossil came from!!!" A paleontologist could:

a) outright fake the fossil as with Piltdown man
b) assemble fossils from different animals (so that, for example, he can claim to have found a bird with a reptile-like tail)
c) go to a market in China and buy a fossil and then plant it somewhere else so that he can claim to have found it.

OMG there is no independent verification to prevent any of this!! We should have people following these paleontologists around at all times, right? Wrong. This is just something that we have to live with. Other scientists scrutinize the fossils and the other evidence presented. That's just how it works.

It's the same with Apollo. Some things could be faked. That doesn't mean they were.

It will do absolutely nothing to "quell skeptics." We've been through this before with the images of the face on Mars. Don't you remember? We now have very high resolution images of the face, and people just claim those images are fakes.

This is kind of ridiculous, don't you think? What happens if I fake data from a satellite? Forget images for a moment, let's use a real-world example. Let's say that my pet theory is that gamma-ray bursts are coming from inside the milkyway galaxy. To support my pet theory, I make a satellite, the HETE satellite, that will return FAKE data showing most of the GBRs in the galactic plane. Great. Now I've got my fake data and everyone believes me.

But wait. Now someone launches another satellite, the Swift sat. It can also detect GBRs. It's going to reveal the truth. So now I've got to make sure that it's data is false as well. After that comes HETE-2. I better make sure it return fake data. And this is going to continue forever and ever. I'm just constantly digging a deeper hole for myself.

What happens if NASA fakes images from the LRO? They'd better make darn sure that the Japanese probe returns fake data or everyone is going to find out what NASA did. And the Chinese - they'll have to be pressured into doing the same thing. It's just a constant, never ending problem. Nobody, not even a vast government conspiracy, could keep up with all that.

As far as your gamma-ray bursts theory and HETE satellite goes, if you had to adhere to tamper proof standards as I'm calling for, then your theory and fake data would be revealed. By knowing this, you most likely wouldn't make such scientific claims in the first place.

This example only supports my argument of why tamper proof standards are needed.

...

[KingNor]

i just dont' see what the point of this discussion is.

nothing will convince this person.

"show me high rez photos of the lander site"

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/Apollo_11_7.jpg

"but wait those images arn't high enough resolution!"

http://www.aranyagardens.co.uk/Diploma%20Portfolio/Images/Photos/400/My%20life%20path/Moon%20landing.JPG


"i simply choose to ignore this edvidence on the grounds that i simply dont' beleive it, not because it can be disprooven in anyway, it just doesn't "feel" right to me personally."

[softearth]

i just dont' see what the point of this discussion is.

nothing will convince this person.

I wonder if Christopher Columbus heard this same statement over 500 years ago?

What is so wrong about asking for more evidence :question:

[Grand_Lunar]

I wonder if Christopher Columbus heard this same statement over 500 years ago?

What is so wrong about asking for more evidence :question:

Because you are ignoring the more prevelent evidence, the photos, broadcasts, Doppler plots, moon rocks, claiming that there was no "independent verification", and yet claim that a few photos from an orbiter will convince you.

Given the fact you're appearently not accepting the evidence scientists world wide have accepted, it's rather doubtful that photos from an orbiter, no matter how high resolution, would be considered "solid evidence".

The moon rocks would be a more reliable source of evidence, considering that it is more likely for photos to be faked.

[Dave J]

I wonder if Christopher Columbus heard this same statement over 500 years ago?

What is so wrong about asking for more evidence :question:

Apollo has produced far more evidence than any single orbiter mission ever will. They measured data from on, in, and around the Moon. They brought back genuine, independently verified samples. Their data has been used to expand the world's knowledge about our Moon.Yet you believe that all this evidence is fraudulent abd contrived.
...and you want...nay, demand, further evidence to quell your personal skepticism? Just because your background is insufficient to properly understand the reality of Apollo doesn't mean that you can dictate the details of the missions to come.
The LRO and it's mission is being engineered with specific goals in mind. They will not be designed to meet the desires of a tiny "lowest common denominator". Whatever evidence it produces which verifies the Apollo story, you will explain away anyway. Your type have a proven track record in this area.
Your call for additional data is not honest. Try learning enough to understand the mountains of data that exist today. It seems it's been scrutinized and accepted as genuine by the world's scientists. Who are you to ignorantly question that, then demand more? Get educated, sir!
Dave

[bonkey]

I wonder if Christopher Columbus heard this same statement over 500 years ago?

What is so wrong about asking for more evidence :question:

You're not Christopher Columbus.

You're the guy doubting that Columbus actually found America because you couldn't see him make landfall yourself.

You've been presented with the potato, and various other things that no-one has seen before which he brought back and are arguing that maybe they're fake because you don't quite believe they had to have come from over the seas. You can't prove they didn't, nor can you actually show there's any sort of flaw in what is presented....you just think that because some independant third-party ship wasn't sitting off the bow watching with ol' Chris did.....we can't rule out that he made it all up.

And now, you're saying that when Columbus goes on his next journey, there is an onus on Columbus to figure out a way to prove to you that he went there the first time.


What is so wrong about asking for more evidence

Here's a link to 64 proofs of Pythagoras' Theory (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/index.shtml). Is more evidence needed to show that the theory is, in fact, proven?

No, there isn't.

So what's wrong with asking for more evidence that Pythagoras' Theory has been proven? Everything, because it would be a waste of time and effort to provide this for someone who is effectively ignoring the existing evidence and dismissing it because they don't like it, but can't say why its all wrong.

Even if said person could argue that 63 of the 64 proofs weren't rigorous enough, pandering to their demands for more evidence should consist solely of one response: Look at the existing proofs that you cannot discount.

The evidence to prove what you want proven exists. That you don't like it is neither here nor there. That you can raise objections to some of that evidence only matters in that its an admission that you don't object to all of it. You have what you need to draw your conclusions, but you refuse to do so. Instead, you ask for more evidence.

Asking for more evidence in this situation undermines the very notion that you are in a position to objectively analyse the evidence and draw an objective conclusion. That's whats wrong with it.

[Hamlet]

What is so wrong about asking for more evidence :question:

Because it's disingenuous and a diversionary tactic. You've conveniently ignored all the other evidence and have focused on one area that you think gives you some wiggle room to claim "hoax".

Your ridiculous suggestion that "checksums" are an effective way to ensure against tampering are an indication that you have no clue what you're talking about. You've spouted a lot about tampering, but haven't produced one single instance of this alleged tampering.

For all you your posts you've ignored the single, most simple solution. You and the other HBers should educate yourselves. Make an effort to understand the evidence for the thing you are trying to undermine. Nearly every HBer that comes here is woefully lacking in any actual knowledge of Apollo or space exploration in general. You've been a splendid example of this type of HBer.

You've tried to present the appearence of some type of "truth seeker". However, people who are actually seeking to understand an event don't ignore evidence that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions as you have done. The "truth" of Apollo will never rest upon images from an orbiter. The chain of evidence for Apollo is long, varied and completely open to anyone who cares to look at it. This has been the case since July 20, 1969 and nothing is going to change that.

I've given you a reference to the LRO frequencies you were looking for. How is your receiver coming? Have you talked to the engineers at NASA yet? I don't really expect an answer since your pattern has been to ignore questions that demonstrate your shallow level of knowledge.

[KingNor]

In fact some of the "evidence" for hoaxes and coverups have turned out to be mistakes and alterations done after NASA released the images. not one instance has stood up to scrutiny when blaming NASA for falsifying images.

the "puff of smoke" from a smoke stack is a good example, when nova did a zoom on a static image of the moon, some dust got moved on the camera, a lot of people saw that and thought it was video of a puff of smoke.

aside from you personally not having any faith in NASA, where is even an anicdotal example of NASA being caught faking the moon landings.

I find it intresting that hoax claimers find it so natural to assume that since NASA had opprotunity to alter things, that they most likely did alter things(dispite proof). I wonder what that tells us about the nature of the accusers.

I want to see evidence of wrong doing before being asked to find proof of innocence.

[Gillianren]

Others have explained this, but I need my try, too.

If your question were actually "why haven't we gone back?" it has been answered over and over again. Money and public will.

If your question were actually "why haven't pictures been taken of the landing sites?" it has also been answered over and over again. No Earth-based or space-based telescope has the resolution, and there is no valid purpose to sending a probe for the express purpose of imaging the landing sites, because it won't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced, and if they did want to be convinced, the weight of evidence is already there.

See, that's the thing. Weight of evidence. It's huge. You have managed to find one place in the entire record where there isn't what you think is sufficient evidence, and you're trying to drive a wedge in there to pull the whole thing apart.

It won't work. The whole of the evidence is so beautifully cohesive that there is nowhere a wedge can be driven in to disprove it. Why? Because the missions were real. After all, if you're the sort of person who can look at all the other evidence--which has, despite what you seem to think, been independently verified as much as is possible by Earth-bound resources--and say, "Yeah, but what about [trivial thing X]," you're not actually going to be convinced even if higher-quality images of the landing sites are made now. And, again, if you want high quality images of the landing sites, what's wrong with the ones the astronauts took on the actual Moon?

[softearth]

I would like to thank everyone in the last 6 or so post for giving me your opinions and thoughts on all the evidence that has been provided by NASA to prove the Apollo moon landings. I agree that most of the evidence is overwhelming and very convincing for most people and scientist alike from around the world.

That's all great, but this thread was not started to discuss moon rocks, soil and core samples, photos etc., but was instead started to discuss the lack of lunar orbiter images showing the lunar modules and/or rovers on the surface of the moon during the past 35 years.

Some people on here have posted great reasons why no such images are available and I have to totally agree with their logic and scientific reasoning. It is also noted the there will be a new lunar orbiter scheduled for launch in 2008 that will be able to take high resolution pictures (0.5 meters) of the surface of the moon that may finally provide addition evidence to prove the moon landings indeed took place, as most people already know.

Therefore, the only question up for scientific debate now is how can NASA or any other space agency guarantee the data and/or images are 100% tamper proof? This is a great opportunity for all the brilliant people on here or from anywhere else for that matter to circumvent the skeptics and beat them to the punch.

Someone mentioned earlier in a post on this thread that the "face on Mars" is still being disputed by skeptics who say that the images were faked. This alone should serve as evidence that by having a tamper proof method of collecting and sending data and/or images would help to eliminate such arguments on any future missions from any space agency.

So again, If anyone has knowledge or an idea on how this can be done, please share it with the board.

...

[PhantomWolf]

I guess I might as well stop participating in this thread, it's not like any of my questions is ever going at actually get answered, regardless of how many times I ask them.

[PhantomWolf]

So again, If anyone has knowledge or an idea on how this can be done, please share it with the board.

To be blunt, it isn't possible without removing the control of the very people who are running the probe. Any system put inside the probe can be counterfeited by the people that build it. Short of building, launching, and operating your own probe, you're out of luck. By the way I have been involved in computers, both programming and building, for over 19 years, so I have a little knowledge in the field.

[tofu]

Therefore, the only question up for scientific debate now is how can NASA or any other space agency guarantee the data and/or images are 100% tamper proof?


In my opinion, it simply cannot be done. There will always be a certain element of trust. But don't go away from this thread thinking that this is unusual. You've been given two great examples from other sciences that, to some extent, have to rely on trust. I gave you the example of palentology, and Thomas gave you the example from deep ocean research.

I'm sorry to say, but as long as humans are involved, you are just going to have to trust them.

To a scientist, reputation is everything. Get caught falsifying data even once and you're toast.

Which brings us back to NASA. If NASA did falsify the LRO images, how long could they keep it a secret? The answer is, as long as it takes for some other country to send a probe. And when that happens, NASA will be exposed and no one will ever believe them ever again.

To NASA, it isn't worth it - they know it isn't worth it - they wont tamper with the images.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What is so wrong about asking for more evidence :question:
When you dismiss out-of-hand all prior evidence? You don't understand what's "wrong" with asking for more?

It's a scam by hoax believers, more often than not.

Hoax Believer: "I want more evidence."
Apollo Supporter: "Here's pictures."
HB: "Not sufficient. I want more evidence."
AS: "Here's independent verification of the moon rocks."
HB: "Not sufficient. I want more evidence."
...
AS: "That's all the evidence there is."
HB: "Hah! That must because it was faked! I knew it!"

If high-res images in 2008 show better views of the landing sites, you'll just ask for them to actually bring back the rover before you're "convinced".

Conspiracy of the gaps...

[Dave J]

The purpose of the LRO mission will be to get better imagery of the surface to support the return mission. It is not to find evidence of the previous missions. Your "needs" for such evidence are not on the radar scope of the mission planning team and the designers.
The Apollo astronauts noted in detail the problems they had with the pre-mission landing site imagery. The resolution was not great, and many significant details didn't show.
Again, if you don't accept the thousands of surface photos, why should you demand the evil NASA that they tailor the mission to your incredulous needs?

Ain't gonna happen...