An end to the conspiracy theories

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whatwhat**

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6718553.ece

For four decades it has sat in bleak isolation on the lunar surface, unseen to the human eye and gathering dust. Now, in new photographs released by Nasa, the remainder of the spacecraft that carried Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the final leg of their voyage to the Moon can be seen for the first time, right where they left it.

Nearly 40 years to the day since Armstrong uttered his triumphant “The Eagle has landed”, a robotic probe circling the Moon has taken the first snaps of the vessel.

While it may seem just a dot on the landscape, the shadow of the Eagle’s base is visible among the craters and boulders where the pair planted mankind’s first footsteps on July 20, 1969.

The image is part of a series of photographs shot by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, an unmanned satellite launched from Florida last month as part of a $580 million exploratory mission to map the Moon in new detail.
Times Archive 1969 Man takes first steps on the moon

The spectacular moment came at 3.56 am: "That's one small step for man but one giant leap for mankind"

Scientists admit that they had not expected such good images so early. “Obviously we’re thrilled. It was very exciting to see this hardware still preserved on the surface, just like if you went to Rome and saw the Colosseum,” Professor Mark Robinson, of Arizona State University, one of the lead scientists involved in the project, told The Times. “This is a fitting tribute to the Apollo 11 mission that first put Man on the Moon.”

Other shots beamed down — all taken between July 11 and 15 — show the landing sites of all but one of the lunar landing missions that followed Apollo 11. In the case of the Apollo 14 site, where Alan Shepard teed off two golfballs after landing with his colleague Edgar Mitchell in January 1971, even the footprints of the astronauts and the marks made in the dust while trundling a wheelbarrow carrying Moon rocks are still visible.

“With photographing Apollo 11, we were right near the lunar sunset so the ground is very stark. With Apollo 14, the sun was getting higher in the sky, so you can actually see the astronauts’ tracks,” Professor Robinson said.

All the spacecraft that landed on the Moon blasted off again to carry the crews back to their command modules, leaving only their “descent stages” standing on the surface.

LRO will orbit the Moon to take shots of potential future landing sites for Man to return by 2020. “What I’m looking forward to is not celebrating what we did in the past but making the future happen. It’s time we put the past in the past, move on, and get humans back on the Moon,” Professor Robinson said.

“It would be great for the 50th anniversary to have an astronaut walking on the surface, taking a picture of these artefacts and maybe using the parts to build the first human settlement on the Moon.”

**Kilkrazy**

They had a Moon shot denier on Radio 4 this morning. It was most amusing. His specialism was saying that the photos wouldnt have been possible.

E.g. Camera batteries don't operate at extremes of temperature found on the Moon. (I thought they used mechanical Hasselblad cameras, actually.)

Film would be fogged by the Van Allen belts.

A professor of physics pointed out that external and internal temperature are different, and that the film passed through the Van Allen belt too quickly to be affected.

Other objections:

They couldn't have focussed with their gloves on.
There was no viewfinder.

**Fallen668**

My Girlfriend is a "moon landing hoaxer". We got into a pretty heated arguement this weekend which ended with me screamiong at her to shut up her heretical thoughts and that I hold her in the same contempt as "6000-year-earth" believers and Obama birth certificate denyers, and refused to aknoweledge anything she said till she changed the subject. Yeah... that was a fun breakfast. Really though.... these people are fething sad. I really wonder hw I date one. She won't even belive this picture above.

**barlio**

You serious Fallen? I hope the sex is great because that's all you're going to get from her (besides money of course).

**Kilkrazy**

The thing about the hoaxers or deniers, call it what you will, is that if presented with scientific evidence which explains away or contrdicts their evidence, they don't believe it.

For example:

Awkward Question: Why are there no stars in the pictures taken on the moon? Space is full of stars, you ought to be able to see them.

Answer: When you take a picture on the Moon during daylight the sun is as bright as it is on Earth during the day, so you wouldn't be able to see stars.

**Zad Fnark**

Tell the denier to whip out their Kodak and snap a picture of the night sky. Let's see how many stars show up...

ZF-

**djphranq**

barlio wrote:You serious Fallen? I hope the sex is great because that's all you're going to get from her (besides money of course).

HAHA lol QFT

The makeup sex had better been worth it!

**Fallen668**

barlio wrote:You serious Fallen? I hope the sex is great because that's all you're going to get from her (besides money of course).

It's good, she pays her half of bills and neither of us want kids so it works out... for the most part.

**barlio**

To each his own I guess.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

The other problem with most conspiracy theories is the sheer amount of people who would need to keep schtum about it is mind boggling.

Thus, it arguably becomes harder to carry off the hoax than to achieve the landing....

Another favourite of mine, Kurt Cobain being murdered instead of topping himself has a terrific foil to it. Why would 'The Man' cover it up? He was essentially a no-mark Rock Star.

**Kilkrazy**

My brother is a believer in the Loose Screws/Fallen Change (I can't remember the name of the film) theory that the Twin Towers were destroyed by the US government in order to manufacture a terrorist enemy.

**whatwhat**

Oh god lets not get started on 9/11 theories. About the only one of them I will even give attention to is the idea that the 4th plane got shot down, rather than was retaken from the terrorists in some hollywood style feat.

I've also seen videos showing loads of triangle patterns in street maps, claiming this has something to do with freemasonry. Of course when the question arises: isn't a triangle a fairly common geometric shape? No answer is given.

**George Spiggott**

@ Whatwhat (re: OP) So what you're saying is that photographic images cannot be manipulated in the year 2009? Good luck with that. /Devils advocate

**whatwhat**

George Spiggott wrote:@ Whatwhat (re: OP) So what you're saying is that photographic images cannot be manipulated in the year 2009? Good luck with that. /Devils advocate

Did I say that? I mean if they can't I'm kind of out of a job, as that's partly what I do for a living.

**Gamingnutrpg**

I find trying to convince a person who believes in a conspiracy that its not true is like trying to tell religious nuts that there is no god. It'll never happen no matter how much proof you throw at them LOL

**George Spiggott**

whatwhat wrote:Did I say that? I mean if they can't I'm kind of out of a job, as that's partly what I do for a living.

You haven't given any opinion on the subject yet. The inability to manipulate photos is the only way that this can be taken as conclusive proof of the moon landings. /Devil's advocate (still)

Fixed!

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Kilkrazy wrote:My brother is a believer in the Loose Screws/Fallen Change (I can't remember the name of the film) theory that the Twin Towers were destroyed by the US government in order to manufacture a terrorist enemy.

And again, this falls down at the first hurdle, of why has no one come forward and blown the whistle? Seriously, to pull off a stunt like that, the cold blooded murder of thousands of people, would take more people than were killed. And seemingly, none of them had a conscience.

Plus, why create a Terrorist Enemy? Why would you want that? If you want to pick a fight, you just do an Iraq and pretend they have something they shouldn't, then look sheepish when your found out (though I do hasten to point out I don't hold Blair or even Bush particularly responsible. Sure, they made the call, but that was based on dossiers and information supplied by people pad a lot of money to get things right. And I really don't see a country starting a war for Oil. Much better ways to go about such things than a massive punch up.

**whatwhat**

George Spiggott wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Did I say that? I mean if they can't I'm kind of out of a job, as that's partly what I do for a living.

You haven't given any opinion anything on the subject yet but its the only way that this can be taken as conclusive proof /Devil's advocate (still)

Sorry, I didn't understand that.

**BrookM**

The second gunman was on the moon.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

You mean.....Dr Evil was the second gunman, and the Allan Parsons Project his weapon of choice?

I suppose a 'laser' would explain a lot!

**George Spiggott**

whatwhat wrote:Sorry, I didn't understand that.

You haven't given any opinion on the subject yet. The inability to manipulate photos is the only way that this can be taken as conclusive proof of the moon landings. /Devil's advocate (still)

Fixed!

**sebster**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And again, this falls down at the first hurdle, of why has no one come forward and blown the whistle? Seriously, to pull off a stunt like that, the cold blooded murder of thousands of people, would take more people than were killed. And seemingly, none of them had a conscience.

Yeah, this is the big issue for so many conspiracies. I mean, you look at the leaks from the build up to Iraq, and compare it to the number of people needed to organise something like blowing up the WTC or faking the moon landings, it's inevitable that multiple people would have spoken out.

Plus, why create a Terrorist Enemy? Why would you want that? If you want to pick a fight, you just do an Iraq and pretend they have something they shouldn't, then look sheepish when your found out (though I do hasten to point out I don't hold Blair or even Bush particularly responsible. Sure, they made the call, but that was based on dossiers and information supplied by people pad a lot of money to get things right. And I really don't see a country starting a war for Oil. Much better ways to go about such things than a massive punch up.

Except the intelligence was hopelessly compromised by senior members of the Bush administration, who put direct pressure on junior CIA analysts to report WMD findings.

**Wrexasaur**

sebster wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And again, this falls down at the first hurdle, of why has no one come forward and blown the whistle? Seriously, to pull off a stunt like that, the cold blooded murder of thousands of people, would take more people than were killed. And seemingly, none of them had a conscience.

Yeah, this is the big issue for so many conspiracies. I mean, you look at the leaks from the build up to Iraq, and compare it to the number of people needed to organise something like blowing up the WTC or faking the moon landings, it's inevitable that multiple people would have spoken out.

Plus, why create a Terrorist Enemy? Why would you want that? If you want to pick a fight, you just do an Iraq and pretend they have something they shouldn't, then look sheepish when your found out (though I do hasten to point out I don't hold Blair or even Bush particularly responsible. Sure, they made the call, but that was based on dossiers and information supplied by people pad a lot of money to get things right. And I really don't see a country starting a war for Oil. Much better ways to go about such things than a massive punch up.

Except the intelligence was hopelessly compromised by senior members of the Bush administration, who put direct pressure on junior CIA analysts to report WMD findings.

Most conspiracy theories are based on proof that the government has made mistakes (imagine that eh?) and more importantly have done so in various attempts to destroy the planet. I personally think that the problems we encounter in the government are simply side-effects of being human, not to say that there aren't some obviously shady deals going on though.

A.) WHO CARES IF THEY DID NOT LAND ON THE MOON... get a damn life already.

B.) There are a million other things to research that are immensely more important than these ridiculous theories that have some seriously sparse evidence to back them up.

C.) Even it the government did have direct connection to the horrors of 9/11 it is public knowledge that the C.I.A. trained a lot of their terrorist leaders previously. Either way, the U.S. government has made decisions (and not made decisions) that can be linked directly as the cause of many issues that are present now... then again, this appears to be the norm now, and arguing about the governments responsibility in the current situation is next to madness. We need to be out of Iraq now, we never should have been there in the first place.... etc... etc... etc...

**Manchu**

Has anyone else noticed that conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers, and opponents of evolutionary theory generally operate in the same way: they make an outlandish but (extremely) marginally probable claim that is well contradicted by a substantial amount of generally accepted evidence and then demand to be proven wrong? Why should reasonable people have to do all this work to disprove the bizarre claims of nuts? Moreover, what do the nuts get out of it? A sense that they are somehow privy to secret knowledge and thus somehow better than everyone else?

**sebster**

Wrexasaur wrote:Most conspiracy theories are based on proof that the government has made mistakes (imagine that eh?) and more importantly have done so in various attempts to destroy the planet. I personally think that the problems we encounter in the government are simply side-effects of being human, not to say that there aren't some obviously shady deals going on though.

A.) WHO CARES IF THEY DID NOT LAND ON THE MOON... get a damn life already.

B.) There are a million other things to research that are immensely more important than these ridiculous theories that have some seriously sparse evidence to back them up.

C.) Even it the government did have direct connection to the horrors of 9/11 it is public knowledge that the C.I.A. trained a lot of their terrorist leaders previously. Either way, the U.S. government has made decisions (and not made decisions) that can be linked directly as the cause of many issues that are present now... then again, this appears to be the norm now, and arguing about the governments responsibility in the current situation is next to madness. We need to be out of Iraq now, we never should have been there in the first place.... etc... etc... etc...

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying there. In terms of the ridiculous conspiracies such as claiming the moon landing was fake or that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, they are just silly and not worth anyone's time. But there are real conspiracies, and sometimes governments do things which are really, really bad. And yes, this is the product of being human, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

**Wrexasaur**

There are two types of conspiracy theorists.

A.) Guys with absolutely nothing better to do, who get satisfaction out of know unverifiable "facts" that they use to pump their Ego into a godly state.

B.) People who don't really believe a lot of the stuff they say (especially after doing some serious research) and are in it purely as a passing phase.

There are also people who fall into both categories, but I usually call them Professors.

Look up Chris Rock about the War on Terror... it has some dirty words, so won't link it here. Seriously funny and honest stuff.

**Manchu**

Wrexasaur wrote:There are two types of conspiracy theorists.

A.) Guys with absolutely nothing better to do, who get satisfaction out of know unverifiable "facts" that they use to pump their Ego into a godly state.

B.) People who don't really believe a lot of the stuff they say (especially after doing some serious research) and are in it purely as a passing phase.

QFT. I wonder which population is larger, though.

**Wrexasaur**

Manchu wrote:
Wrexasaur wrote:There are two types of conspiracy theorists.

A.) Guys with absolutely nothing better to do, who get satisfaction out of know unverifiable "facts" that they use to pump their Ego into a godly state.

B.) People who don't really believe a lot of the stuff they say (especially after doing some serious research) and are in it purely as a passing phase.

QFT. I wonder which population is larger, though.

For now the amount of Tin-hat college students far outnumber the newspaper dwelling trolls.

**Manchu**

Wrexasaur wrote:For now the amount of Tin-hat college students far outnumber the newspaper dwelling trolls.

Thanks to the interwebz, it's only a matter of time.

**Wrexasaur**

I will be ready...