It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA to Take Photos of the Lunar Landing Sites to End Conspiracy Theories

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I don't really need convincing that they went, I think they did. What I want to know is who told them not to go back for 50 years.

That would be the question of the hour. Ohh and I bet you they will photoshop the hell out of them anyway, just to make us scream and feed more money into the conspiracy propaganda machine.

I mean, NASA has NO credibility with people who actually use their minds, so why would this change anything?

~Keeper




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
so, now their listening to us and taking action to refute our claims? i thought we were just wackos? i dont buy this a bit. why, suddenly, after so many other opportunities to take these photos, would they choose to go back now. Especially in the golden-age of animation. They could completely fabricate photos that looked 100% real.

Nothing means anything anymore



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Kevin_X2
 



...why, suddenly, after so many other opportunities to take these photos...


Kevin, you're assigning the wrong motives here.

There was no need to waste money and resources to take a photos of what was up there (out there?) just to satisfy/shut up a few dozen conspiracy nuts (I'm talking to Bart Sibrel, here!!!)

The current mission LRO/LCROSS is, among other things, intended to get some more accurate imaging, especially at the South Pole, for future manned mission planning. Since this camera, as a result of its main mission, has sufficient resolution to pick up smaller objects, like the Descent Stages left there, it is a great opportunity to get pictures of them as it orbits past.

Imaging capablity is somewhere under one meter/pixel...maybe as small as 30-50 cm/pixel. That's just a rough guess, will depend on factors...for intance, photos taken when the Sun is low on the Lunar horizon will result in large, long shadows.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
Will the photos be made public before or after they are photoshoped to remove anomalies?


And how would you know they are "photo-shopped" ?

Many here tried to "prove" their theories of existance alien life and structures by enlarging NASA photos by 500% and using "non-destructive" "enhancement" tools to "recognize" stuff and find the patterns in the noise.

I have yet to see ONE (yep, just one stinkin' photo) which made me go hmm and which is even remotely serious proof of anything ...

Unfortunately it seems that same individuals are also world leading self-recognized "experts" in discovering fake elements in earthly things as well, such as Obama's birth certificate ...



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

The current mission LRO/LCROSS is, among other things, intended to get some more accurate imaging, especially at the South Pole, for future manned mission planning. Since this camera, as a result of its main mission, has sufficient resolution to pick up smaller objects, like the Descent Stages left there, it is a great opportunity to get pictures of them as it orbits past.

Imaging capablity is somewhere under one meter/pixel...maybe as small as 30-50 cm/pixel. That's just a rough guess, will depend on factors...for intance, photos taken when the Sun is low on the Lunar horizon will result in large, long shadows.



I understand one objective is to crash a rocket stage into a "dark crater" that never gets lit by the sun. They would then use sensors to determine if the ejecta from the collision contains any ice/water. I guess if there was any ice on the moon's surface, it could only exist in areas which are never heated by the sun. If there is water/ice on the moon, this would be a huge boost for any future colonization or extended landing area.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The USA (NASA) have not publicly been back because of resources (money) focusing on LEO manned missions, and robotic exploration of other portions of the Solar System.




What do you mean "publicly"?? Do you know something?

And as for resources; Finance a dumbass shuttle program and space station but ignore the moon. Does that make sense? Not to me.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 



...What do you mean "publicly"??...


Just hedging my bets!



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I think they would be better off taking photographs of the shard in the SW area of Siniu Medii. I'd rather have a close look at that, or the object supposedly investigated by Apollo 20 than the Apollo landing sites.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
My goodness, Richard seems to think very highly of himself. The whole moon landing hoax conspiracy theory was created because of him?


Yeah well he is constantly trying to upstage John Lear...


But I like the point made that NASA is behind creating the conspiracy. I never though about that angle before..

Now a few things that bugged me make sense
I will have to study this angle. Public interest dies down quickly in the space program save for the techies... but with a conspiracy... its constantly in the forefront, the battle between the skeptics and the believers and everyone in between

Makes sense



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kevin_X2
so, now their listening to us and taking action to refute our claims? i thought we were just wackos?


The fact that NASA is here at ATS listening is a fact. I can prove it and ArMaP can back that up... "The case of the vanishing directory"
Happened while ArMaP was in the middle of d/ling an image. Long leadup to that but trust me they are watching


As to NASA at least 'feeding' conspiracies we have this presentation to a group of scientists




How is THIS for 'In your face!"



And yet that Rover was spotted here in Nevada



And from the same presentation we see both an artifact and a fossil







Now NASA was NOT kind enough to provide us with source image numbers... BUT ArMap and myself dug them up... and found neither the artifact, nor the fossil is in the originals, though the Rover DID drill the rock where the fossil was supposed to be..

So WHY the presentation without data? It wasn't labeled a 'what if'

I bet somehow NASA profits on the conspiracy angle.

The work on the above and ArMaP's data is HERE



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
I think they would be better off taking photographs of the shard in the SW area of Siniu Medii. I'd rather have a close look at that, or the object supposedly investigated by Apollo 20 than the Apollo landing sites.


They passed directly over Aristarchus Crater a few days ago but so far we only have 15 images to look at and many are black

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

lroc.sese.asu.edu...



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Of course we went to the moon. The moon landing hoax arguments are so laughable, like expecting parallel lines on the surface from shadows of a single light source. What, do they think the moon is flat?

But for some clue of how the evidence showing we landed on the moon will be received, I suggest we consider the example of the Cottingley Fairies
Two young girls faked some fairy pictures (and they were really pretty bad fakes by today's standards), and look at what happened when the truth came out:

Elsie and Frances remained tight-lipped until 17th February 1983 when Elsie admitted in a letter of confession that the photographs were a hoax, claiming that they had drawn the fairies, cut them out and fastened them to the ground with hatpins. So that was that! Or was it? The mystery still lives on with many people still believing that the Cottingley fairies existed.


So, "please don't confuse me with facts, I have my beliefs to stick to" may be the mindset of those who will never be convinced.

As for why we haven't been back to the moon in so long, that's already been explained well so many times. In addition to the funding, the manned missions were nonetheless extraordinarily dangerous. The astronauts were landing in what amounted to little more than a tinfoil box. The one argument the landing hoaxers do have partially correct is the radiation risk, an unexpected, powerful CME (coronal mass ejection) could do some real damage to unprotected astronauts outside the earth's orbit, that much is true, but we got lucky and didn't have that problem. The president had a speech ready to read:


On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin became the first men to walk on the moon. The following speech, revealed in 1999, was prepared by Nixon's then speechwriter, William Safire, to be used in the event of a disaster that would maroon the astronauts on the moon:

"Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace. These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice. These two men are laying down their lives in mankind's most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding. They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by their nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown. ...."


Undelivered Nixon Speech

That's a speech they really didn't want to use, but every successive mission carried a chance a similar speech WOULD be used. Think about that.

If each mission had, say, a 15% chance of ending in death in space, why would they want to keep sending missions to add tragedy to the triumph of getting there? They wouldn't, we accomplished our goal of proving we could get there, mission complete. So I think it was more than just funding, it was a safety issue and a lack of any compelling additional mission goals beyond winning the space race to the moon.

Technology has advanced so far I'm sure the margin of safety can be greatly increased by now, though it will still be risky.

And I'll be glad to see the pictures too. Even though I sort of understand why, it still strikes me as a little odd the Hubble telescope can see things 13 billion light years away, but can't see a moon landing site in our own backyard.

Let's see how many moon landing hoax believers will be converted to believe the moon landing really happened, after these pictures come out. What's your guess, 50% of them?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


I agree, with the help of CGI available to NASA today... they can produce every evidence they need artificially.

And nobody will be able to debunk this "real" fresh new evidence.

BUT...

interesting that they even consider to do something like this...

Are the "conspiracy" rumors getting to loud at to many places on the internet already?

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Terrapop]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
For anyone wanting to know when it passes over the Apollo sites here is the live location tracking

lroc.sese.asu.edu...



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Kevin_X2
so, now their listening to us and taking action to refute our claims? i thought we were just wackos?


The fact that NASA is here at ATS listening is a fact. I can prove it and ArMaP can back that up... "The case of the vanishing directory"
Happened while ArMaP was in the middle of d/ling an image.


How do you know NASA had anything to do with it, couldn't have just been a glitch? ArMaP, what's the scoop?

Zorgon, interesting photos, that last one looks like, what, the door handle from a 1962 Chevy?

One thing I could believe, is that if NASA accidentally photographs a sensitive satellite, they could wipe out any evidence of that before releasing the photograph. That's probably what the hacker stumbled onto.

However, I'm not sure I understand how NASA benefits from a disinformation campaign on this subject. At least on the UFO subject, disinformation could be a way to keep people confused about black projects that are sighted, but I'm not understanding the benefit of disinformation in this case.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I don't really need convincing that they went, I think they did. What I want to know is who told them not to go back for 50 years...

The socio-political landscape of the 1970s and the malaise of the early 1980s.

Those two decades took the wind out of NASA's Moon program sails and it took 15 more years to get congress (the guys who decide how to spend the country's money) interested in the Moon again.


[edit on 7/8/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
For anyone wanting to know when it passes over the Apollo sites here is the live location tracking

lroc.sese.asu.edu...

Thanks, Zorgon -- But don't forget that one must coordinate this with the phases of the Moon. Even when the LRO's orbit takes it aver a landing site, that part of the Moon may be in darkness at the time.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terrapop
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


I agree, with the help of CGI available to NASA today... they can produce every evidence they need artificially.

And nobody will be able to debunk this "real" fresh new evidence.

BUT...

interesting that they even consider to do something like this...

Are the "conspiracy" rumors getting to loud at to many places on the internet already?

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Terrapop]



I hope the photos they release are more convincing than the ones released showing a plane hitting the Pentagon. Described by some news people and even Wolf Blitzer if I remenber correctly as "the smoking gun".

Also, look at the periodic releases of messages from Osama Bin Laden.

Just some thoughts.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
While it will no doubt not convince the conspiracy-believers in any way it will help to further marginalize them by exposing the amount of special-pleading and closed-mindedness they employ to cling to their belief. This thread is already full of it and it is laughable.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
While it will no doubt not convince the conspiracy-believers in any way it will help to further marginalize them by exposing the amount of special-pleading and closed-mindedness they employ to cling to their belief. This thread is already full of it and it is laughable.


I see you have a keen sense of humor. Perhaps this might get a chuckle out of you as well. "Believing any federal or psuedofederal agency with their track record of telling the truth."


Isn't that funny?



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join