posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:58 PM
Originally posted by kiwifoot
Why is it so hard for you to look at this with an open mind?
Having an open mind doesn't mean accusing the science team of forging images (or even being capable of such a crime). It means seeing whether or not
the images are 100% consistent with the Apollo-era data. As far as I've had time to look, they are.
If I am able to say that I'm undecided about this, am open to both possibilities and would prefer the truth, could you not for one moment take off
your blinkersa and admit it's a possibility that these images are faked.
I cannot see a single shred of evidence here to indicate fakery, nor can I accuse a science team at Arizona State of even being capable of doing so
If NASA faked the landings (hypothetical situation here) and NASA sends the LRO, then it's possible NASA is misleading this university team too.
How exactly would they do that if ASU is the one handling the data?
I don't want to argue with you, I'm just more open minded to possibilites than you are.
Well considering that I ruled out the possibility of a hoax based on data available prior to LRO, in a way I agree, I just find the possibility you
state to be, well, impossible given the evidence.
If you want people to beleive man could muster the technology 40 years ago to land on the moon (that we couldn't do now),
Actually we can do it, we're working on it with a shoestring budget compared to before.
navigate the Van Allen Belt,
Why would that be a problem? Aluminum with q-felt insulation is a good shield against van allen forms of radiation. 7 rems in 24hrs would be
received from the belts if all you had was just 3mm of aluminum.
even with the many photograpic anomolys that are available,
There aren't any, just people who don't look at the high resolution original images.
then you really have to open up your mind to the possibilty that it may have been faked.
No, you don't.
[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]