The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, just launched, will have enough camera resolution to take pictures of the stuff left behind by the Apollo landings.
So, before it gets there, it's time for all of us to come up with predictions of what the lunar hoax brigade will come up with to explain them away.
Over to you ...
The loonies are way ahead of you. Here's a Torygraph article from 2002:Originally Posted by Trinoc
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...d-on-Moon.html
Which quotes Marcus Allen, the UK publisher/editor of the anti-semitic new-age magazine Nexus:
"I would be the first to accept what they find as powerful evidence that something was placed on the Moon by man."
He added, however, that photographs of the lander would not prove that America put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem - the Russians did that in 1959," said Mr Allen. "The big problem is getting people there."
According to Mr Allen, Nasa was forced to send robots to the Moon and faked the manned missions because radiation levels in space were lethal to humans. "We know that no lead shielding was carried on Apollo, so how were 27 astronauts able to survive a journey of several days to and from the Moon?"
Any images taken by the LRO which provide evidence for man going to the moon will obviously have been faked using the same advanced 3d holography techniques used to simulate planes crashing into the World Trade Centre on 911.
Infact any such images will provide direct proof that 911 was a false flag operation perpetrated by the Illuminati in furtherance of their plans to bring about a New World Order.
skb
ETA: LRO - Lizard Ruler Overlords.
Last edited by skbuncks; 19th June 2009 at 02:58 PM.
I, for one, welcome our new ... oh, never mind!
You knew it would not work.
The conspiracy theorist will only include the Japanese LRO in the conspiracy and that all the pictures and video have all been faked. Nothing short of taking the nuts to the lunar surface and dumping them at the site of the Apollo eagle landing would work, perhaps maybe not. No evidence would suffice.
Oh yes! You ZOG reptiloids would love to send them all into space where they would die instantly from the Deadly Cosmic Rays (or possibly some of them would turn into superheroes). What easier way to kill the people who know The Truth than to send them all up in $billion rockets to their certain death?
I don’t think I was very clear about my suggestion that the conspiracy nuts would accuse the Japanese of being in with the Americans LRO coverage of the Apollo site. The Japanese probe has taken some very good high definition photographs of the Lunar surface before becoming the controlled crashing so it would be a short skip and a jump for them to propose that the Americans told them not to photograph anywhere near the Apollo Eagle site.
Croydon Bob …………….. Super Giant Catapults… Much cheaper nicker elastic.
I fear that for some of them not even this would suffice. It is quite sad really that some people can be so disillusioned from realityYou knew it would not work.
The conspiracy theorist will only include the Japanese LRO in the conspiracy and that all the pictures and video have all been faked. Nothing short of taking the nuts to the lunar surface and dumping them at the site of the Apollo eagle landing would work, perhaps maybe not. No evidence would suffice.
skb
Of course it would: it would immediately silence them.
Oh, you mean you'd give them spacesuits?
Cruel but fair.
No, it wouldn't. On the priviso that we gave them space suites, immediately upon their return to Earth they would claim that their cool aid had been spiked with advance hallucinogensOf course it would: it would immediately silence them.
Oh, you mean you'd give them spacesuits?
skb
as far as the question of our astronauts landing on the moon in the way they have claimed...
i have examined the question and i have reached my own tentative conclusion. i believe you all would do well to actually take on real skeptiscism about anything you accept as true. an unexamined truth is a dogma.
is that a false statement?
as a real skeptic we should begin with skeptiscism about all things which we currently believe. i find that, upon examination, that what we believe we have never actually examined in a fair way. by fair i mean "without a personal interest in gain."
this - i believe if we are fair - must be a rather difficult and perhaps impossible task. so i must admit i cannot consider myself fair any more than you.
however, i can point out pieces of information and let us go on from there.
for me, i find my tentative belief in regards to apollo 11 to be most succintly and briefly expressed in the apollo 11 press conference.
this is still viewable on the web. perhaps you could take the time to watch it closely. the fascinating thing about video now is one can watch it over and over and even download it and go frame by frame.
best.
Now that phrase is a real giveaway - it implies that the only evidence in support of an actual moon landing is the testimony of the astronauts who went there!
How about that of the thousands of people working at NASA throughout, plus the signals from the spacecraft on its journey and from the moon which were tracked in various countries (some of which would have been delighted to embarrass the USA by revealing a hoax).
Skepticism is even more productively applied to daft notions which don't stand up for a moment.as a real skeptic we should begin with skeptiscism about all things which we currently believe
From the confused ramblings you have posted so far you seem to be a "real skeptic" in the same way that a fish is a real helicopter.
You've a long way to go to reach skepticism. I try not to "believe" anything. I have opinions based on evidence and probability.
Of course the moon landings could have been faked, but it would, as Tony has suggested, be a massive conspiracy involving thousands of NASA employees, none of whom have ever spoken up, plus the USSR, China, UK, etc. What would be the point? What would be the point of pretending that men can travel in space if they can't? Why would the soviets have collaborated? How come they haven't leaked the truth since, etc, etc.
I think that you are one of the many loonies who confuses having an open mind with having an empty mind.
[QUOTE=Croydon Bob;78714]From the confused ramblings you have posted so far you seem to be a "real skeptic" in the same way that a fish is a real helicopter.
what is a skeptic. what is the methodology of a skeptic?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks