Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chandrayaan Maps Apollo Missions

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the ilm-took-care-of-the-backstory dept.

Moon 86

maheshc writes "Chandrayaan has mapped 6 Apollo landing sites on the Moon (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17). More at the Times of India. Perhaps time to retire all the conspiracy theories ..."

cancel ×

86 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uh Huh (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408545)

Pics or it didn't happen.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26409077)

Seriously. How can they have such an article without images or a link to the site with images? NASA would've had pics in .tif and .jpg format of varying resolutions and sizes ranging from 300k to 8m. What the fuck, India? We outsource the space program to your country and you're half-assing it? Man, you'd think we would've learned something from giving you our lucrative IT + customer support contracts.

Re:Uh Huh (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409429)

And even if we have pics. They're obviously part of the conspiracy !

It isn't because you're paranoid that they aren't out to get you.

Re:Uh Huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26409579)

It isn't because you're paranoid that they aren't out to get you.

Ok, even trying to parse that sentence is giving me a headache. Do you program in lisp, by any chance??

First! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408551)

WhoopWhoop!

Re:First! (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 5 years ago | (#26410577)

I think you meant: w00t?

        -dZ.

Re:First! (1)

ikono (1180291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26418809)

we need a -1 fail mod...

but where is the cheese? (1)

geekstarr (1112945) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408555)

i know its there because i saw a doco on it. this guy and his dog go there so it must be true

Re:but where is the cheese? (1)

pnevin (168332) | more than 5 years ago | (#26413545)

C'mon, it's a Wallace and Gromit reference, mods.

Cool (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408663)

Let's send all the negros to the moon

Of course they found the Apollo sites.. (1)

3cardtrick (698617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408667)

..they'd be stupid to change anything about those film sets after all these years. Conspiracy theorists worldwide would have a field day!

Soundstage on Mars (1)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26414413)

No, no - the Apollo 11 site is a soundstage on Mars [xkcd.com] .

Darn, where's the three musketeers (Odyssey, Express, Reconnaissance) when you need them?

Re:Soundstage on Mars (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420877)

And yet they've never explained why the three musketeers always used swords.

Re:Soundstage on Mars (1)

krenshala (178676) | more than 5 years ago | (#26435865)

Because even experts took 15 to 30 seconds to reload after firing their musket, and back then the bayonet fit -into- the barrel, not over it.

Please... (5, Insightful)

NewbieProgrammerMan (558327) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408697)

Perhaps time to retire all the conspiracy theories ...

Oh come on, you know how this is going to go. The conspiracy theorists will claim any photos are real terrain photos with CGI Apollo artifacts added. Or maybe CGI terrain photos with CGI Apollo artifacts added.

I fully believe that there exist people whose belief in their conspiracies is so unshakeable that you could load them onto a rocket, fly their worthless ass to the moon, land them at the Apollo sites, let them see the items firsthand, and they would STILL deny that we went there 40-ish years ago.

Re:Please... (4, Funny)

GleeBot (1301227) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408765)

I fully believe that there exist people whose belief in their conspiracies is so unshakeable that you could load them onto a rocket, fly their worthless ass to the moon, land them at the Apollo sites, let them see the items firsthand, and they would STILL deny that we went there 40-ish years ago.

That's when you crack their visors open. Win-win for everyone involved.

Re:Please... (1)

jep77 (1357465) | more than 5 years ago | (#26411293)

...revealed... by a top scientist associated with the Indian moon mission, P Sreekumar, who quit his job in the US to be a part of the Indian moon team...

For conspiracy theorists this is obvious... Sreekumar didn't quit his job in the US... he was sent to work on the Indian moon team to make sure they properly "found" and "mapped" the sites.

I'm no conspiracy theorist but I sure would like to see pictures. The discussion about why nobody has sent a mission to the moon that was able to do just this came up at work last week and when I saw this article I thought we'd be able to close the topic at work and move on to better things.

Re:Please... (2, Funny)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408797)

Easy, they would just say you faked their entire flight.

Re:Please... (1)

pines225 (1413303) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409081)

An accelerometer, a stopwatch and a real-time model of the solar system would provide absolute proof that you got to the moon, even if you were blindfolded throughout. One of the implications of the special theory of relativity is that an observer inside a closed box which is accelerated and decelerated (as any moon traveller will be) can absolutely detect these accelerations - the accelerations are absolute, not relative.

Re:Please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26409193)

But, you can be placed on a centerfuge and give a acceleration that is indeed correct, but imply you're being launched...

Re:Please... (2, Insightful)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409893)

But, you can be placed on a centerfuge and give a acceleration that is indeed correct, but imply you're being launched...

You can give a _locally_Euclidean_ acceleration which is correct, but not a _non_locally_Euclidean_ acceleration which is correct (in other words, tidal forces will be very significant, especially for any centrifuge which is smaller than the entire earth. Someone simply dropping two objects separated by a meter or so can easily detect if they're in a gravity well---or in a centrifuge---or being accelerated more linearly, as to the moon).

Re:Please... (3, Insightful)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409215)

Conspiracy theorists don't really care about facts.

Re:Please... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26416239)

A good crackpot cares about facts but with a reality inversion field:

"Because they try to discredit us, we must be getting close to the truth"
"Because they manufacture all this evidence, we must be getting close to the truth"
"Because they fake all these witnesses, we must be getting close to the truth"

A true conspiracy theorists will use any contradicting evidence as proof he's right. In fact, the more intensely anyone tries to prove them otherwise, the more convinced they become that they're right. If people are ignoring them, it's because they're trying to silence the whole issue. Often combined with early stages of Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you... and conspiracy theories don't get further than that. It's rather easy to become immune to logical arguments when you can warp anything you want into supporting your position.

Re:Please... (1)

RolfRomeo (1147303) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409791)

Actually newtonian physics, with some galilean insights will suffice. Also throw in a 3-axis gyroscope to reassure the skeptic. And magnetometers and an apparatus to measure the electric field to ensure the primary sensors haven't been tricked by some other means. Even then there's still a chance the assembler has been in contact with the conspirateurs.

Re:Please... (1)

ozphx (1061292) | more than 5 years ago | (#26410751)

Newton was in on it too.

Re:Please... (2, Insightful)

mfnickster (182520) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409095)

Easy, they would just say you faked their entire flight.

Either that or they'd say, "Sure, NOW we have the technology to land on the moon-- which is why you put all that stuff here last week!"

Re:Please... (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409889)

let them see the items firsthand, and they would STILL deny that we went there 40-ish years ago.

I ain't buying into your charade! Clearly you are willing to fly me to a landing site that you have staged to cover up the fact that you didn't go there forty years ago! omg! omg! The truth is out there! Fox Mulder forever! omg!

Re:Please... (1)

Ex-Linux-Fanboy (1311235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26410179)

Fox Mulder forever!

There is, sadly, a lot of truth to the statement that conservatives are more likely to fall for conspiracy theories. There is iron-clad proof that Obama's birth certificate is real [politifact.com] ; despite this, conservative news sites still continue to believe "Obama's birth certificate is fake" conspiracy theories [wnd.com] .

Re:Please... (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26410659)

Hey! I ain't stating that Obama was not born in America! omg omg! I am stating that he is an alien overlord imposter! omg! Clearly he has been "infected" and is now seeking to rule our planet with his overlord minions! mmm Scully's cleavage! omg! We managed to obtain a glass used by Obama, and tested it, and it's true, he isn't human! When will the world finally see it?

In other news, I for one welcome our new alien overlords!

Re:Please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26411999)

OMG, George W. Bush knew that there was an attack on the towers and did nothing to stop it because his family is in cahoots with the bin Laden family! No, I can't buy that. Conspiracy theorists abound among all political stripes.

Re:Please... (1)

Ex-Linux-Fanboy (1311235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26412423)

yeah, there are liberals who believe that kind of nonsense, but I haven't seen that kind of nonsense on Daily KOS, which is roughly the liberal equivalent of World Net Daily.

I don't mind well-formed conservative arguments; John Ringo [johnringo.com] , for example, is a writer who is quite conservative but who I greatly enjoy reading.

My issue is that a pretty mainstream conservative site is giving us "OMG, Obama wasn't really born in Hawaii" nonsense. Or, likewise, the mainstream conservative news network (Fox news, or should I say, "Faux News") gave us "Obama is a Muslim [cnn.com] " nonsense and doesn't apologize for their gross errors of fact.

When a non-conservative news source uses questionable or false information, heads roll [netglimse.com] (Dan Rather had to step down for a report based on information later discovered to be questionable). I would like to see conservative news sources held to the same level of accountability for correctly presenting facts. Until then, I simply can not trust a conservative source to give me accurate information.

Re:Please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26430829)

www.thepentacon.com

Idiot.

Re:Please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26439111)

This particular nutcase conspiracy theory has been torn down by the very conservative National Review [nationalreview.com] .

It's a waste of time trying to convince them. (2, Insightful)

wfstanle (1188751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408737)

There will be no way you can convince the conspiracy fans. This includes all of the conspiracy theories, you just can't satisfy these people. They will simply say that NASA and the Indian space agency are in cahoots and they will dismiss it.

Re:It's a waste of time trying to convince them. (3, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408811)

They will simply say that NASA and the Indian space agency are in cahoots and they will dismiss it.

That's the way it works.

The basic thought pattern also suggests that they believe the Soviets and the US were in cahoots too, either that or they haven't thought the objections through. Maybe they don't say it outright, but that's the logical conclusion of their arguments because if the Soviets had any reason to believe it was all faked, they could have said so very loudly, and I don't recall stumbling across anything like that.

Re:It's a waste of time trying to convince them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408997)

Of course the americans and soviets were in cahoots. The cold war was just a convenient way to tip the balance of power towards the military-industrial complex and to keep the population in line with carefully orchestrated campaigns of fear (eg, nuclear attack drills in public schools).

Re:It's a waste of time trying to convince them. (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#26410217)

Yup, totally agree - the US government cant cover up a blow job, or keep a plain old burglary quiet, but they can fake the moon landings. Ok then...

Re:It's a waste of time trying to convince them. (1)

BradleyAndersen (1195415) | more than 5 years ago | (#26419361)

Exactly. Same reason we have a "God" today.

Offshore (4, Funny)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408779)

What?! Now they're out-sourcing the conspiracies to foreign workers?! This is a travesty! America deserves a Government who will maintain an American workforce to craft it's most inner secrets and public deceptions.

Re:Offshore (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408897)

Dont worry, the self-important nutters have moved on to 9/11 "inside job" theories. Apollo denial is out of fashion.

Re:Offshore (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408927)

Are you kidding? That conspiracy was farmed out to the Israelies. No wonder America is in such a dire economic situation.

Re:Offshore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26421953)

www.thepentacon.com

Come back and tell us they are "self-important nutters" when you've watched the videos...

Calm down, Chandrayaan is safe in Area 51 (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409149)

The Indian Space Agency is just receiving data that it *thinks* is coming from the moon, and not from a desert in Nevada.

The space shuttle caught Chandrayaan on its last mission, and brought it back to Earth. The space shuttle carried a giant baseball shortstop's glove fitted to the shuttle's robot arm to perform the catch. The Philadelphia Phillies advised on the project, and were paid in Jim's cheese steaks, as not to leave a financial paper trail.

Once in Area 51, sinister scientists there had no problem to electronically feed it with bogus data, so Chandrayaan thinks that it has really reached to moon.

Including, of course, photos of sites on the moon where the fake Apollo landings supposedly took place.

It all seems pretty logical to me.

Re:Calm down, Chandrayaan is safe in Area 51 (1)

meglon (1001833) | more than 5 years ago | (#26415861)

That theory is all well and good, except you're missing one obvious point.... NASA has faked the space shuttle program for decades. HA HA, I can't believe you fell for that one!!

Re:Calm down, Chandrayaan is safe in Area 51 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26418845)

The Philadelphia Phillies advised on the project, and were paid in Jim's cheese steaks, as not to leave a financial paper trail.

Not just Jim's cheese steaks. Tastykakes and Wawa coffee, too.

The truth is out there... and it's delicious!

Pictures? (1, Redundant)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408783)

Where are the pictures?

Re:Pictures? (1)

Limb (1047158) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408815)

Thats exactly what I'm wondering... no mention at all in the article.

Re:Pictures? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409273)

No, no, you're supposed to say "GIFS or it didn't happen!"

Re:Pictures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26410281)

Where are the pictures?

Your file IrrefutableEvidence.3ds has been modelled and queued for visualization.

Our render farm is temporarily unavailable while serving 2.5 million downloads of a beta operating system, expected to complete later tonight.

Conspirators International apologize for the inconvenience.

Six? (5, Interesting)

AJWM (19027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408865)

"Chandrayaan has mapped 6 Apollo landing sites on the Moon (Apollo 11, 12, 14 15 and 17)"

I count that as five. So the Apollo 16 landing (only) was faked?

Mod Parent up -- Good catch! (3, Informative)

ObiWonKanblomi (320618) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409025)

Apollo 11, 1969, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins
Apollo 12, 1969, Charles (Pete) Conrad, , Alan Bean, Richard Francis Gordon
Apollo 14, 1971, Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, Stuart Roosa
Apollo 15, 1971, David Scott, James Irwin, Alfred Worden
Apollo 16, 1972, John Young, Charles Duke, Thomas Mattingly
Apollo 17, 1972, Eugene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt, Ronald Evans

Re:Six? (0, Troll)

BigGerman (541312) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409157)

Indian programmers were clearly involved in this computation

Re:Six? (0)

kandela (835710) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409251)

No, they didn't fake 13 either. The stuff up was real.

Re:Six? (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26412069)

(whoosh)

Apollo 13 never landed on the Moon, so there's no 13 landing site. There should be an Apollo 16 landing site on that list.

Proof of Alien Apollo Missions (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409855)

Well, this all seems pretty obvious to me. Chandrayaan found the landing sites of 6 Apollo missions, but only 5 of them came from the Earth (Apollo 11, 12, 14 15 and 17). So when they find the site of Apollo 16, that will leave them with a total of 7. But the NASA only did 6 missions to the moon! So who did the seventh?

Obviously, aliens. We are not alone. And they have been *real* near us; on the Moon.

Watch the sky tonight, and all nights from now on.

You have been warned.

Re:Proof of Alien Apollo Missions (1)

jmauro (32523) | more than 5 years ago | (#26410687)

So who did the seventh?

Ron Howard [imdb.com]

Re:Proof of Alien Apollo Missions (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26412041)

So when they find the site of Apollo 16, that will leave them with a total of 7. But the NASA only did 6 missions to the moon! So who did the seventh?

The CIA, with leftover Apollo hardware, to check out an apparent Soviet landing. (That's actually the plot of my recent NaNoWriMo novel, still in progress.)

Can never prove complete idiots wrong. (1)

heteromonomer (698504) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408959)

The problem is that the conspiracy nuts dispute humans landing on the moon. It's not that the Apollo crafts landed. Unfortunately it will need photographs of foot prints to shut them up. Even then, there are always going to be nuts who will perhaps claim that the Americans paid off the Indians. Best to ignore the nuts and move on with progress.

Re:Can never prove complete idiots wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26409017)

a robot could have made the footprints. no proof a human made then bootprints exists.

The Nuts Vote (1)

srobert (4099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26418421)

Ignoring the nuts would be nice, but these people vote. They vote against "wasting" tax payers' money on "$3 million overhead projectors". They vote to end "needless subsidies to study the genetics of fruit flys, the effects of global warming", etc.

"All the conspiracy theories" ? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408961)

There was a theory that the Apollo landings were faked. Given proof that the landings actually happened, how does this suddenly dispel "all" alleged conspiracies?

Quite frankly, the attitude in this original post and in all of the comments so far is disturbing. If you're not skeptical and seeking proof that things actually happened as you were told, then what kind of Slashdot intellectual could you possibly be. For shame.

Re:"All the conspiracy theories" ? (4, Insightful)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409505)

Proof: I hate that word.

Intellectuals don't seek proof, they seek evidence. We sought it, and we received plenty. Sure, the footage could conceivably have been faked, but the mirrors, which are still testable today, could not have been unless they were already there, or they placed them there later. There are countless other pieces of evidence, making it hard to reach any other conclusion. The only alternative hypotheses that are supported by all of the evidence are so far fetched that the question becomes a no-brainer.

Conspiracy theorists seek proof because there is no such thing. They don't want to come to the logical conclusion, so they ignore the evidence, and require this thing you call "proof". You can't "prove" to someone that you exist (you might just be a figment of their imagination); all you can do is provide evidence, and let them decide on the strength of that evidence. If you can't prove something as obvious as your existence, then what hope do you have of proving something happened yesterday, or 40 years ago?

Even mathematical proof is meaningless in the absence of axioms, so can we please stop using that word?

Bollywood and Disney Conspiracy!!! (3, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409125)

Can't you see this is just more proof the moon landings didn't happen!? It's all part of a massive deal between Disney studios that shot the original moon landings and Bollywood. In exchange for their support Bollywood have the rights for Highschool Musical 4: Summer in Mumbai in which the kids all get summer jobs in an Indian call center but struggle to fit in because their names don't need to be westernized. Disney will also be outsourcing the next lunar landings to a Bollywood studio to cut costs. Expect to see moon rocks in the shape of traditional Indian cusine some time early next decade.

Outsourcing (3, Funny)

Renderer of Evil (604742) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409139)

From what I understood is that NASA is now outsourcing its Conspiracy Coverup Unit (CCU) to India. Next thing you'll hear would be how some scientist in Bangalore had discovered previously unseen 1080i footage of JFK assassination.

Re:Outsourcing (1)

karvind (833059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409995)

Why do you hate India ?

The beauty of conspiracy theories... (2, Insightful)

Geekenstein (199041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409221)

..is that anything that doesn't fit your theory can be explained away as part of the conspiracy. The nutters will continue to be nutty.

Re:The beauty of conspiracy theories... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26410943)

Just like religion.

Re:The beauty of conspiracy theories... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26411021)

you know there ARE real conspiracies. here's a great example [chomsky.info] :

The Fate of an Honest Intellectual
Noam Chomsky

[Excerpted from Understanding Power, The New Press, 2002, pp. 244-248]

I'll tell you another, last case-and there are many others like this. Here's a story which is really tragic. How many of you know about Joan Peters, the book by Joan Peters? There was this best-seller a few years ago [in 1984], it went through about ten printings, by a woman named Joan Peters-or at least, signed by Joan Peters-called From Time Immemorial. It was a big scholarly-looking book with lots of footnotes, which purported to show that the Palestinians were all recent immigrants [i.e. to the Jewish-settled areas of the former Palestine, during the British mandate years of 1920 to 1948]. And it was very popular-it got literally hundreds of rave reviews, and no negative reviews: the Washington Post, the New York Times, everybody was just raving about it. Here was this book which proved that there were really no Palestinians! Of course, the implicit message was, if Israel kicks them all out there's no moral issue, because they're just recent immigrants who came in because the Jews had built up the country. And there was all kinds of demographic analysis in it, and a big professor of demography at the University of Chicago [Philip M. Hauser] authenticated it. That was the big intellectual hit for that year: Saul Bellow, Barbara Tuchman, everybody was talking about it as the greatest thing since chocolate cake.Well, one graduate student at Princeton, a guy named Norman Finkelstein, started reading through the book. He was interested in the history of Zionism, and as he read the book he was kind of surprised by some of the things it said. He's a very careful student, and he started checking the references-and it turned out that the whole thing was a hoax, it was completely faked: probably it had been put together by some intelligence agency or something like that. Well, Finkelstein wrote up a short paper of just preliminary findings, it was about twenty-five pages or so, and he sent it around to I think thirty people who were interested in the topic, scholars in the field and so on, saying: "Here's what I've found in this book, do you think it's worth pursuing?"
Well, he got back one answer, from me. I told him, yeah, I think it's an interesting topic, but I warned him, if you follow this, you're going to get in trouble-because you're going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they're going to destroy you. So I said: if you want to do it, go ahead, but be aware of what you're getting into. It's an important issue, it makes a big difference whether you eliminate the moral basis for driving out a population-it's preparing the basis for some real horrors-so a lot of people's lives could be at stake. But your life is at stake too, I told him, because if you pursue this, your career is going to be ruined.
Well, he didn't believe me. We became very close friends after this, I didn't know him before. He went ahead and wrote up an article, and he started submitting it to journals. Nothing: they didn't even bother responding. I finally managed to place a piece of it in In These Times, a tiny left-wing journal published in Illinois, where some of you may have seen it. Otherwise nothing, no response. Meanwhile his professors-this is Princeton University, supposed to be a serious place-stopped talking to him: they wouldn't make appointments with him, they wouldn't read his papers, he basically had to quit the program.
By this time, he was getting kind of desperate, and he asked me what to do. I gave him what I thought was good advice, but what turned out to be bad advice: I suggested that he shift over to a different department, where I knew some people and figured he'd at least be treated decently. That turned out to be wrong. He switched over, and when he got to the point of writing his thesis he literally could not get the faculty to read it, he couldn't get them to come to his thesis defense. Finally, out of embarrassment, they granted him a Ph.D.-he's very smart, incidentally-but they will not even write a letter for him saying that he was a student at Princeton University. I mean, sometimes you have students for whom it's hard to write good letters of recommendation, because you really didn't think they were very good-but you can write something, there are ways of doing these things. This guy was good, but he literally cannot get a letter.
He's now living in a little apartment somewhere in New York City, and he's a part-time social worker working with teenage drop-outs. Very promising scholar-if he'd done what he was told, he would have gone on and right now he'd be a professor somewhere at some big university. Instead he's working part-time with disturbed teenaged kids for a couple thousand dollars a year. That's a lot better than a death squad, it's true-it's a whole lot better than a death squad. But those are the techniques of control that are around.
But let me just go on with the Joan Peters story. Finkelstein's very persistent: he took a summer off and sat in the New York Public Library, where he went through every single reference in the book-and he found a record of fraud that you cannot believe. Well, the New York intellectual community is a pretty small place, and pretty soon everybody knew about this, everybody knew the book was a fraud and it was going to be exposed sooner or later. The one journal that was smart enough to react intelligently was the New York Review of Books-they knew that the thing was a sham, but the editor didn't want to offend his friends, so he just didn't run a review at all. That was the one journal that didn't run a review.
Meanwhile, Finkelstein was being called in by big professors in the field who were telling him, "Look, call off your crusade; you drop this and we'll take care of you, we'll make sure you get a job," all this kind of stuff. But he kept doing it-he kept on and on. Every time there was a favorable review, he'd write a letter to the editor which wouldn't get printed; he was doing whatever he could do. We approached the publishers and asked them if they were going to respond to any of this, and they said no-and they were right. Why should they respond? They had the whole system buttoned up, there was never going to be a critical word about this in the United States. But then they made a technical error: they allowed the book to appear in England, where you can't control the intellectual community quite as easily.
Well, as soon as I heard that the book was going to come out in England, I immediately sent copies of Finkelstein's work to a number of British scholars and journalists who are interested in the Middle East-and they were ready. As soon as the book appeared, it was just demolished, it was blown out of the water. Every major journal, the Times Literary Supplement, the London Review, the Observer, everybody had a review saying, this doesn't even reach the level of nonsense, of idiocy. A lot of the criticism used Finkelstein's work without any acknowledgment, I should say-but about the kindest word anybody said about the book was "ludicrous," or "preposterous."
Well, people here read British reviews-if you're in the American intellectual community, you read the Times Literary Supplement and the London Review, so it began to get a little embarrassing. You started getting back-tracking: people started saying, "Well, look, I didn't really say the book was good, I just said it's an interesting topic," things like that. At that point, the New York Review swung into action, and they did what they always do in these circumstances. See, there's like a routine that you go through-if a book gets blown out of the water in England in places people here will see, or if a book gets praised in England, you have to react. And if it's a book on Israel, there's a standard way of doing it: you get an Israeli scholar to review it. That's called covering your ass-because whatever an Israeli scholar says, you're pretty safe: no one can accuse the journal of anti-Semitism, none of the usual stuff works.
So after the Peters book got blown out of the water in England, the New York Review assigned it to a good person actually, in fact Israel's leading specialist on Palestinian nationalism [Yehoshua Porath], someone who knows a lot about the subject. And he wrote a review, which they then didn't publish-it went on for almost a year without the thing being published; nobody knows exactly what was going on, but you can guess that there must have been a lot of pressure not to publish it. Eventually it was even written up in the New York Times that this review wasn't getting published, so finally some version of it did appear. It was critical, it said the book is nonsense and so on, but it cut corners, the guy didn't say what he knew.
Actually, the Israeli reviews in general were extremely critical: the reaction of the Israeli press was that they hoped the book would not be widely read, because ultimately it would be harmful to the Jews-sooner or later it would get exposed, and then it would just look like a fraud and a hoax, and it would reflect badly on Israel. They underestimated the American intellectual community, I should say.
Anyhow, by that point the American intellectual community realized that the Peters book was an embarrassment, and it sort of disappeared-nobody talks about it anymore. I mean, you still find it at newsstands in the airport and so on, but the best and the brightest know that they are not supposed to talk about it anymore: because it was exposed and they were exposed.
Well, the point is, what happened to Finkelstein is the kind of thing that can happen when you're an honest critic-and we could go on and on with other cases like that. [Editors' Note: Finkelstein has since published several books with independent presses.]
Still, in the universities or in any other institution, you can often find some dissidents hanging around in the woodwork-and they can survive in one fashion or another, particularly if they get community support. But if they become too disruptive or too obstreperous-or you know, too effective-they're likely to be kicked out. The standard thing, though, is that they won't make it within the institutions in the first place, particularly if they were that way when they were young-they'll simply be weeded out somewhere along the line. So in most cases, the people who make it through the institutions and are able to remain in them have already internalized the right kinds of beliefs: it's not a problem for them to be obedient, they already are obedient, that's how they got there. And that's pretty much how the ideological control system perpetuates itself in the schools-that's the basic story of how it operates, I think.

Re:The beauty of conspiracy theories... (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 5 years ago | (#26416303)

The term "conspiracy theory" is a label for a specific type of belief. It is not meant to imply that there is no such thing as a conspiracy. It is referring to beliefs which require undetectable and omnipotent "conspiracies" in order to rationalise away all counter-evidence to that belief. The conspiracy in a "Conspiracy theory" is an incidental conceit. There are many actual conspiracies uncovered throughout history. But those were detected by uncovering legitimate evidence of their existence, rather than merely asserting they exist to make up for the lack of evidence for some other claim. The existence of actual conspiracies does nothing to shore up the weak reasoning used to invoke "conspiracy theories".

Re:The beauty of conspiracy theories... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26418997)

the problem is that, today, real conspiracists work in ways to make EVERYTHING that they do that is associated with the conspiracy, even if perfectly leaked and pointed out for what it is, seem outlandishly far from the proposed 'conspiracy'.

I'll give you two examples that come immediately to mind. For years my favorite Linux distro was Debian. Debian is huge. So big, whole niches like Knoppix and Damn Small Linux all are Debian underneath. Well, you remember that between 2006 and 2008 ALL SSL traffic to and from a Debian box used one of some 100,000 possible keypairs. [slashdot.org]

That source code modification was no accident. No one "accidentally" does conscientous enough work to get the type of status that allows them to make that modification, then makes a specific, "underhanded" change that makes the algorithm handshake to one of 100,000 keypairs (not one of a very few, or always the same one -- one of 100,000, so that even if people actually looked at some of the keys they would assume each one was random), while getting the change approved.

here's my next example: wired reported that Apple developed the iPhone (while denying that they were working on an iPhone) by putting the software engineer to work on a screen connected to a huge box of cluttered wires sitting next to their desk. They put their hardware industrial designers to work with dummy software that did nothing. The hardware and software guys literally never talked to each other, let alone were in the same room.

Now, if someone were to have said what, we now know, is the truth, then even if we had had full pictures of the hardware and software guys, we wouldn't have believed it if someone said "look, this is a conspiracy. They're working on a touchscreen phone. The hardware guy is working with the software guy, even though they, uh, never talk to each other, and the software guy has no idea he's working on a phone. He probably assumes it's a tablet or something, what with a huge box of wires and circuit boards next to his desk. The word phone never enters his mind. The hardware guy probably thought the phone would have a wheel or something in the front panel that he wasn't being told about. Hell, for all he knows it's just an iPod. The word touchscreen never enters his mind."

To make matters worse, Apple didn't even hire phone guys to do the phone work. We learned from this slashdot comment [slashdot.org] that they retrained a real-time embedded software guy to work on cell phone architecture.

All of this is EXACTLY the behavior I expect from real conspiracies of today. I'll be honest with you: if it doesn't go against the laws of physics, and the supposed conspiracy would actually be in the interests of the entity it is attributed to, then I don't consider the conspiracy-theorist crazy in the least. I consider them a realist.

from The Untold Story: How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry [wired.com]

Whenever Apple executives traveled to Cingular, they registered as employees of Infineon, the company Apple was using to make the phone's transmitter. Even the iPhone's hardware and software teams were kept apart: Hardware engineers worked on circuitry that was loaded with fake software, while software engineers worked off circuit boards sitting in wooden boxes.

Re:The beauty of conspiracy theories... (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 5 years ago | (#26488253)

That source code modification was no accident. No one "accidentally" does conscientous enough work to get the type of status that allows them to make that modification, then makes a specific, "underhanded" change that makes the algorithm handshake to one of 100,000 keypairs (not one of a very few, or always the same one -- one of 100,000, so that even if people actually looked at some of the keys they would assume each one was random), while getting the change approved.

that statement is pretty much entirely composed of straw men, unsubstantiated assertions, and arguments from ignorance and incredulity. Do you have anything to back up what you're saying?

As well as requiring even the tiniest shred of evidence, your hypothesis needs to address the following issue - how did the hypothesised conspirators intend to avoid their exploit being exposed in the inevitable way that it has been? If there was no possible way to do that, why did they bother at all? Even if you could come up with an answer, you would need to produce some evidence to back it up, otherwise it falls foul of Occam's razor by introducing yet another unnecessary assumption to an argument already composed entirely of unnecessary assumptions.

your apple example is just a rehash of the argument i already addressed that just because it's possible to keep a secret for some finite period of time depending on how many people know it, or that people do conspire with one another, does not justify the purely speculative rationalisations of a paranoid "conspiracy theory" and its' omniscient omnipotent conspirators that are used as a furnace into which to hurl any evidence that contradicts some baseless and arbitrary belief, including, recursively, the belief in the conspiracy itself.

hi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26409225)

I want to see Armstrong and Aldrin in the octagon.

Maybe I missed something... (1)

Skudd (770222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26411509)

...but where's the "proof"? Is it just in the text? If that's the case, then I have mapped where Russia landed on Mars. You'll just have to believe me on this one.

Its all about the resolution (2, Informative)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 5 years ago | (#26412161)

Chandrayaan's camera [wikipedia.org] only has a resolution of 5M - a LEM descent stage barely fills a pixel. One more anonymous dot among many, neither ammunition for or against conspiracy nutters.

Anyhow, if you bother to read TFA you'll find they had a much more prosaic purpose - to compare the readings from their instruments to the known regolith and rock at the landing sites in order to check their calibration.

Of course, the real question is (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26412205)

have they found the secret moon base that ppl claim we have? :)

Re:Of course, the real question is (1)

dwye (1127395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420379)

> have they found the secret moon base that ppl claim we have? :)

That was the Nazis that you are thinking of (unless your "we" *is* the National Socialist German Workers' party, of course).

Or SHADO, I suppose.

Re:Of course, the real question is (1)

nido (102070) | more than 5 years ago | (#26427501)

A few years back I was handed a cassette with an Art Bell interview of Ingo Swann. Swann had appeared on Bell's show in support of his then-recently released book, Penetration: The question of human and extraterrestrial telepathy. At one point Art Bell asked, "What's on the moon, Ingo?" Fascinating interview - I bet you could find a torrent, or buy the mp3 at coast2coastam.com [coasttocoastam.com] .

The book is very interesting. I wonder if it's true that there is no high-resolution imagery of the moon available to the public...

WTF (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26412533)

No seriously, I looked everywhere and I didn't find no picture? That's like saying "our paparazzis photographed Beyonce and Christina Aguilera having lesbian sex" and not releasing the damn pictures.

Apollo is easy... (1)

n6mod (17734) | more than 5 years ago | (#26412895)

...did they find TMA-1?

I mean, we *know* where the Apollo sites are supposed to be.

Even the conspiracy is a fake! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26414337)

I'll bet you a top-secret warehouse full of tinfoil hats that the US government paid the Indian government to fake their mission too.

What, again? (1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 5 years ago | (#26415631)

The Apollo sites have all been (re)mapped many times. The sites for Apollo 11, 14 and 15 (sites for Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment reflectors) have been mapped to an accuracy of a few meters, from Earth (a distance of 400,000 km), and that's been going on since Apollos were still going there. Since Chandrayaan is only 100 km from the moon, its ability to replicate the oft replicated deserves a resounding "I should hope so". Now when the Terrain (you use aposelene and periselene for orbital components but stick with 'terrain' for the surface?) Mapping Camera and Lunar Laser Ranging Instrument are working together and producing 3D surface maps with 5 to 10 m voxels, then you'll have something worth reporting. A hint: if the story requires a conspiracy theory or sci-fi reference to carry it, it's either not worth being carried or being carried in the wrong place; if it doesn't require them, it makes as much sense to insert this week's test match scores. Stop it. You're not required to submit to the lowest common /. denominator.

I wish they'd map the two Russian robotic probes (1)

wwphx (225607) | more than 5 years ago | (#26416029)

My wife bounces a laser off the moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Point_Observatory_Lunar_Laser-ranging_Operation, as featured on Mythbusters) and one of the two Russian probes can no longer be hit by laser. It was reachable initially, something happened. Theories are: the position was not actually accurately known, or that perhaps the bracket that supported the mirror failed. My personal theory is that the moon men picked up the rover and moved it a few hundred meters just to screw with us.

Re:I wish they'd map the two Russian robotic probe (1)

MikeyToo (527303) | more than 5 years ago | (#26417801)

The pictures would show it stripped and up on blocks.

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423713)

I wish i had a wife that bounced lasers off the moon. Mind you I wish I had a wife. Hats of dude .. thats a cool wife!

N.

Where did mankind go wrong ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26423545)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ipBOotJDJ1k

Seriously - we should have permanent bases up there by now! Im getting old now i want to experience the next giant leap for mankind before i die. Please!

N.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?