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!

NASA's LRO Captures High-Res Pics of Apollo Landing Sites

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the easy-to-photograph-a-sound-stage dept.

Moon 197

The Bad Astronomer is one of many readers who wrote to tell us about NASA's release of high-res photos showing the Apollo landing sites. The photos were taken from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and show the traces of earlier visits to the Moon. "The satellite reached lunar orbit June 23 and captured the Apollo sites between July 11 and 15. Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution."

cancel ×

197 comments

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

First fake (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28736381)

First fake

I hope they serve FAIL in hell!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28736389)

The business side is even more open. Every film project involves lots of agreements, which have to be made on multiple levels with lawyers and agents reviewing them, often enclosing other agreements as exhibits; then other deals are worked out for the business aspects of any media production, including distribution. Keep in mind, these projects involve financing, so bankers, investors, and their lawyers see documents; insurance, so agents and insurers see documents; then they get shopped around to various studios and other business folks; Then these producers business people, and their lawyers, have neighbors and other social contacts. And like any business folks when people get together, they talk shop. Some of the stuff discussed by business people concerning the creative process can be scandalous gossip and nonsense. We see documents, we don't hang out with Brad and Angelina. But sometimes you keep hearing the same story from multiple people who are intimately involved in the process citing multiple sources. You tend to place more credence in that type of story because it usually turns out to be true.

And there are certain things that are relatively static. For example, most business agreements involving distribution are fairly routine and there is not much room that either party has to negotiate. People didn't reinvent the wheel when Tucker/Darko came around to shop their film for distribution, there are forms that are used over and over. There are only so many distribution outlets so it is pretty well known who is talking to whom and whether they are interested in a project. And these deals in turn attach other agreements as exhibits or get sent around to firms with attachments. Although you don't always understand the creative process from these agreements, i.e. you can't tell whether the product is very good, they do tell the business story and you do see who is part of the process. And the story is pretty standard until you are talking about a half dozen folks who can dictate what they want, and Tucker is not among them--and even then, there deals are pretty standard for them.

When people talk about how business is done and what type of deal someone got, and the usual form for such a deal, it usually has a very high degree or reliability--because the information is first hand and based upon written documents. For example, a theater exhibitor does not have a different contract for every film he shows; nor do distributors for every film they distribute. There are SMALL details that change, but not much does change on the distribution side. Believe me, if you want to find a Freestyle contract in circulation around town, it is not hard to find and --unless you see snow in LA, Tucker's isn't any different than anybody else's Freestyle deal. IOW, there was nothing new or groundbreaking about his deal.

Finally, most of the generic stuff you read on the internet about how Distribution deals work is very accurate; for the reasons discussed above. None of it is secret, the industry has few players, and the deals are fairly standard. They didn't invest hundreds of thousands in legal fees over the years to refine these documents simply to discard them when Tucker comes along.

The way I see it... (5, Funny)

cmowire (254489) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736397)

I'm sure at least once, somebody in the team asked "Now, you guys do know that this will show the landing sight. We really didn't fake the landing, right?"

Re:The way I see it... (2, Funny)

e9th (652576) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736509)

More experienced members of the team were asking, "Are we sure we can get good pictures of the New Mexico desert from way up there?"

Re:The way I *sigh*(t) it... (2, Informative)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736537)

Actually, to show the landing sight, I think they'd actually have to land again. To show the landing site, however, simply requires a sufficiently high-resolution camera.

Re:The way I *sigh*(t) it... (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737299)

Which we apparently don't have. I could take a better picture of the moon with a telescope and a camera.

Re:The way I *sigh*(t) it... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28737843)

Which we apparently don't have. I could take a better picture of the moon with a telescope and a camera.

Better than the recent orbiters that have and will be sent up? No. Good enough to see the landing sites? Also no [discovermagazine.com] .

Re:The way I *sigh*(t) it... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28737719)

To show the landing sight, would require an observer with very powerful optics imaging the site from forty light years away.
That sight of the site would then be able to show the landing.

The best we can hope for is a sight of the landing site as it is now.

yes, I know that you are joking (4, Interesting)

portforward (313061) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736545)

It does always bug me that the people who are so mistrustful that they refuse to accept that US astronauts did in fact land on the moon. One of them even harassed Buzz Aldrin to the point that Buzz (in his late 70s) dropped the guy with one punch to the face. CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing. That is utterly depressing, showing the current level of science education.

Honestly, I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing. They would have had the technology to disprove us, and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.

Someday I hope that we as a species will go back.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (4, Funny)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736635)

Honestly, I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing. They would have had the technology to disprove us, and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.

That's easy, I have reliable evidence from the voices inside my head that we just exchanged some alien technology from the Roswell UFO crash for their silence.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28736837)

LIES: You say that only for the purpose of plausable deniability; NASA shill.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736733)

CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing. That is utterly depressing, showing the current level of science education.

They must have done the survey south of the mason-dixon line, because up here in Minnesota, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that garbage. I still remember when Fox News aired their little "moon hoax" series what NASA's response was. It was, in my opinion, the best headline I will ever read in my life. It read, in giant lettering across its homepage;

Yes, We Did.

Don't think that just because we have slathering idiots in the streets that America as a whole has become uneducated. I assure you, idiots breed in larger numbers than smart people in every country.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736821)

in my opinion, the best headline I will ever read in my life. It read, in giant lettering across its homepage;

Yes, We Did.

Best. Headline. Ever.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (0, Flamebait)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737013)

" assure you, idiots breed in larger numbers than smart people in every country."

But america seems to be special in that it prides itself on it's ignorance, try having an intelligent discussion about ideology with many Americans to see what I mean. It often times seems even the most educated there are also as dumb as rocks in that they will never allow other points of view to penetrate their enormous ideological pride.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (2, Funny)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737097)

" assure you, idiots breed in larger numbers than smart people in every country."

But america seems to be special in that it prides itself on it's ignorance, try having an intelligent discussion about ideology with many Americans to see what I mean. It often times seems even the most educated there are also as dumb as rocks in that they will never allow other points of view to penetrate their enormous ideological pride.

I mean seriously, most Americans still fail to realise the difference between it's and its even though most of us nonnative speakers are quite fluent with it. We can even tell the difference between you're and your, often even their, there and they're!

It just bugs me that there are so few Americans out there today who can actually use their native tongue. Horrible isn't it?

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28737243)

Ha! I still have to think about it every time I write its or it's. Going through the process of thinking that contractions usually have an apostrophe is too much for many. Then again, it's not entirely intuitive. In most cases, a singular possessive has an apostrophe before the s - the confusion in this case may be warranted.

Besides, if we invented English, we'd probably get it right.

For some reason, it reminds me of the old joke: People who speak two languages are called bi-lingual. People who speak three languages are called tri-lingual. People who speak one language are called Americans. :)

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

tylerni7 (944579) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737465)

A singular possessive usually has an apostrophe before the s? Like hers and his? Or theirs?
Possessive pronouns do not have an apostrophe, so its fits in just fine. I agree that it isn't that intuitive for some strange reason, but it's not so bad to remember.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737539)

A singular possessive usually has an apostrophe before the s? Like hers and his? Or theirs?

Those are poor examples. The normal possessive adjective forms are "her" and "their". You only use "hers" and "theirs" in sentences like "It is hers" (unfortunately I'm only above average in grammar, not a real expert, so I don't know the correct technical term). In the case of "his", you aren't just adding an "s" to the normal form of the word. I could be wrong, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am, but "its" is the only case I can think of where the possessive adjective is formed only by adding an "s" (no apostrophe or otherwise changing the word, as in "his", "your", or "their").

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737251)

Darn it! My mod points just expired.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737295)

Unconscious neurological errors are common take some courses in neurology, many people (including myself) cannot help those mistakes.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737337)

It's called proof reading. Learn it, that's why the "preview" button is there instead of a "submit" button :)

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737443)

Form is irrelevant to the substance of what I was saying though, if I say the earth is round and I spell round as roudn, and everyone still understands what it was that I said, and that is what matters.

Although I have thought about using such grammar software like the following:

http://www.whitesmoke.com/ [whitesmoke.com]

On places like slashdot I like the more relaxed atmosphere and I'm not going to proofread and re-read everything I write, otherwise it would consume way too much time. I can live with people poking at my grammar and other errors.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737431)

Nearly as horrible as people who don't hyphenate words correctly - there is no such word as "nonnative". Rather, it's "non-native".

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737883)

I mean seriously, most Americans still fail to realise the difference between it's and its even though most of us nonnative speakers are quite fluent with it. We can even tell the difference between you're and your, often even their, there and they're!

Non-native speakers are generally advantaged by having actually been taught English properly, whereas pretty much all native speakers under the age of 30 or so typically have not.

It's hard for people who have spent most of their life being told that "correctness isn't important, so long as you're understood" to have proper spelling and grammar. ;)

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (4, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737905)

It often times seems even the most educated there are also as dumb as rocks in that they will never allow other points of view to penetrate their enormous ideological pride.

I take it you've never had a conversation with someone who grew up behind the iron curtain, and didn't defect. I once had one such guy physically attack me because I kept shooting down all his theories about how the moon landing was faked. In his eyes, everything in recent history was either done by Russia, was stolen from the Russians, or is a big capitalist lie meant to malign the Russians. You want to talk about ideological blindness, I think Europe has the Yanks beat.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (2, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736773)

It was about 6% of the whole American population, IIRC, in a Gallup poll. About the sort of percentage you'll get as a minimum for any claim, because people tend to agree to statements in surveys to get the surveyors to leave them alone.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28736779)

CNN just had a front page article where they stated that around 25% of 18-25 year olds doubted the truth of the landing.

25% of any random sampling of people are either stupid and/or maliciously answer questions wrong.

How many 18-25 year-olds:
--can list more than 2 constitutional amendments?
--can point to Brazil on a map?
--believe in evolution?
--can list the last 5 presidents?
--can list all 50 states?
--know what state Obama was a senator for?
--know that Obama was a senator?

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (4, Interesting)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736795)

It wasn't just the Soviet Union listening in. Ham radio folks listened in too. Check QST for reception reports for Apollo 10 onwards.

I think it's interesting to compare how well we can fake it now (Apollo 13, From the Earth to the Moon, etc.) with real Apollo footage. Even today, we can't get it quite right.

...laura who has been comparing LRO pictures with the pictures taken by the astronauts

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28736797)

The only plausible way to fake a lunar landing would have been to land an unmanned lander on the surface of the Moon and use that as a relay for fake radio telemetry, video and audio. The signals to the lander relay would have to be sent sent in narrow beams from a number of antennas around the Earth, in order to fake all the transmissions while avoiding detection. Any other fake would probably have been discovered by professionals and amateurs all over the globe, not just in Russia.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737189)

Why send a relay then send the signal to be repeated from the Earth to be bounced back? Video recorders were available in 1969 (or we wouldn't have the recordings of the landing), so they could just send a VTR and a transmitter.

Not that I believe they did.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736855)

Unfortunately the folks obsessed with "disproving" the Moon landings are doing on the premise that NASA faked the whole thing. So any evidence in support coming from NASA would of course be expected. Logic, reason, and facts are not exactly these peoples strong points, so this will do nothing to curtail their wailings. Indeed, this will just be added to the list of things, "faked."

Religious Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28736857)

Don't those percentages correlate to the same percent of stout Bush supporters? As in the far religious right?

Flat 6000 year old earth and all....

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (4, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736863)

Considering the lack of moon-based science we've done since the 70's, that number doesn't really surprise me. I grew up in the 80's, and when I found out as a kid that we'd not just sent one group of men to the moon, but several, I got excited wanting to know how I could go visit the moon myself. I was crushed, upon learning that less than 30 people had ever been to the moon, and nobody ever planned to go back again. It's been almost 20 years since I learned the awful truth, and nobody still yet has a firm launch date for sending a manned orbiter to the moon, let alone an idea of what it would look like. If you're under 30 - the idea of putting a man on the moon sounds damn cool - but it might as well be Arthurian Legend or a story out of an H.G. Wells book written long before you were born. I think people under 30 are highly supportive of putting a man on the moon, and a man on the mars (seriously, what government agency do I write a check to?) but they're skeptical of it ever happening in our lifetime.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (5, Funny)

Tomfrh (719891) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736885)

Honestly, I think the best argument is that the Soviets would definitely have called us out on not landing.

The top tiers of the Soviet machine were in on the hoax. It was excellent propaganda. It generated fear in their people, and fearful people are more easily herded.

Instead of "Iraq has WMDs" it was "America has moon rockets".

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736891)

I agree. But your problem is that you are trying to attack schizophrenia with logic. I recommend trying to argue about something with someone with schizophrenia for an hour. Then you see that logic does not help here. My brother worked with a guy, who insisted that he was able to control the whole world. He ran on the highway, stating that nothing would hit him, because he would control everything. He got hit by a car. He landed in a hospital. And the first discussion when he could talk again, was that this happened, because he *wanted* it to happen. Then he did make up a story about why he wanted that.

The good thing is, that if you know this, you can create scenes where he has to argue that he wanted things, that you want him to want. So usually (because you want to help him), you change him in a way that he wants do to what is really good to him. But this is long, hard, and will not even really cure his dis-association from reality. (For that you need a lot more than a simple therapy!)

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1, Flamebait)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737179)

Wow. The President got hit by a car? I hadn't heard about that.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

zaivala (887815) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736923)

That's not so bad, considering that upwards of 40% are still being taught "Intelligent Design" as "real science" in their school systems.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (4, Informative)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737293)

One of them even harassed Buzz Aldrin to the point that Buzz (in his late 70s) dropped the guy with one punch to the face.

Since you brought it up, I thought I'd link to the video on YouTube. [youtube.com] One of my all-time favorites!

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (2, Interesting)

deathguppie (768263) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737357)

It's simple to understand why some people question it really. If Spain had sent explorers to the new world, and then no one had repeated the journey for say 40 years, many people would have questioned it's existence. The fact that we propose to have done something in the 60's that we are incapable of doing today leads to the questions.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737941)

It's a lot simpler to understand - there are a lot of crazy people around, and even more ignorant people, and conspiracy theories pop up about every major event. Look at how many people believe the "alternate theories" about the JFK assassination.

Re:yes, I know that you are joking (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737371)

"Someday I hope that we as a species will go back."

Back to the ocean?

Re:The way I see it... (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737305)

Hey now, NASA engineers may not always know the difference between metric and imperial units but they aren't that stupid.

Re:The way I see it... (1)

cmowire (254489) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737355)

Well, if I were a NASA engineer working on the LRO (sometimes I kinda wish I were, being the nerd I am) I'd probably ask the question to get a cheap laugh.

Nice (4, Funny)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736411)

Neat shots. I'm just waiting for someone to 'CSI enhance' this so that we can see Neil's bootprints.

Re:Nice (4, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736437)

Actually, I took a webcam shot of the moon from my back yard.. That should be good enough for the CSI team.

Re:Nice (4, Funny)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736493)

Nah, too high res - no challenge. You should have taken a webcam shot through a window and aim it at a crushed soda can.

Re:Nice (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736801)

Sure, that would give a good enough image of the moon landing site to identify Neil's footprints, but it wouldn't give a good enough image to prove paternity of Neil's kids like the LRO images are! Come on people, "CSI enhancement" isn't magic!

Re:Nice (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736717)

It's good how they can resolve 2 pixels into a VIN :)

Re:Nice (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736907)

Hey, does this mean they could play Crysis in HD on a Smartbook with an ARM cpu and 2 watts of power usage? Sweet!

Re:Nice (1)

Kufat (563166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736477)

Won't work. "Walking on the Moon" is a Police song, not a Who song.

Re:Nice (1)

BobNET (119675) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737799)

A Moon belonged to the Who, though...

Re:Nice (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736587)

I saw this on Star Trek, I believe they called it "the Nyquist compensator".

Re:Nice (2, Funny)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736605)

I'm just waiting for someone to 'CSI enhance' this so that we can see Neil's bootprints.

On it. [univie.ac.at] :oP

Re:Nice (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736793)

One of the shots showed Shepard and Mitchell's trail.

Re:Nice (1)

Snarf You (1285360) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736901)

Let me fire up Visual Basic and I'll get back to you.

Re:Nice (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737609)

In case anyone missed that, here's what the parent poster is referring to [youtube.com] .

Awesome! Beautiful desolation. Cheap prices. (4, Funny)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736413)

Awesome place. Beautiful desolation. Cheap prices. Vacant land. Good views of Earth. Historic properties. Once in a lifetime chance to own a piece of history.

Re:Awesome! Beautiful desolation. Cheap prices. (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736539)

No way! Never buy any property listed as 'historic' - the council will never let you change or fix anything. I can't imagine the paperwork you'd have to go through to get clearance to reshingle your geodesic dome near Tranquility Base for fear of upsetting historic mounds of moon dust.

Re:Awesome! Beautiful desolation. Cheap prices. (1)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737083)

The best part is that it's unincorporated so there are no taxes, nor neighbors to speak of.

Re:Awesome! Beautiful desolation. Cheap prices. (1)

ctmurray (1475885) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737231)

It cost about 2.3 Billion per launch in 1970 dollars for the Saturn V rocket [wikipedia.org] . And I think you could only get two people down to the moon at a shot. So the land is not that cheap.

Re:Awesome! Beautiful desolation. Cheap prices. (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737631)

But that includes research costs. Now that they already know how to build the thing, it would probably only cost 10% of that to do it all over again.

Re:Awesome! Beautiful desolation. Cheap prices. (1)

ctmurray (1475885) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737765)

We lost the ability to make a Saturn V and have substituted the Ares V rocket, which is under development [wikipedia.org] , so we still have those up-front costs.

More Lost Photos (4, Funny)

DieByWire (744043) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736479)

Sheesh. These pics are just a few days old and they've already lost the images of the Apollo 13 landing sight.

Re:More Lost Photos (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28737513)

Listen, you inbred moron, I'll tell you once: it's spelt "landing site".

fake pictures? (3, Insightful)

veci (728478) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736517)

Crazy people claim that NASA forged all those moon landing videos and photos (missing stars etc.) They have to refine their theory now it seems (maybe NASA forged these pictures as well)...

Re:fake pictures? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28736569)

The key flaw in their argument is that the USSR would have been tracking each and every apollo mission. if they hadn't been real you can be damned sure that the russians would have been shouting it from the rooftops. The deniers are crazy - a bit like religious fruitcakes!

Re:fake pictures? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736679)

The deniers are crazy - a bit like religious fruitcakes!

The funny part is that the Apollo deniers can't even agree on what happened: some claim that the astronauts never left the Earth, others that they went into space but not to the Moon, and at least one that they landed on the Moon but it had an atmosphere and inhabitants.

So we can safely say that at least 90% of the deniers are wrong, which makes the assumption that the other 10% are wrong pretty easy to justify.

Re:fake pictures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28736979)

That's the bit that undoes most conspiracy theories. Ask a moon denier about the moon landings, and something like "look at the rooster tails on the rover, that's dust in air"... and then ask about the hammer and feather dropping experiment, and "They're in a vacuum container!". Then remind them that the rooster tails on the rover weren't created by rubber tyres on sand, rather the equivalent of a cloth flicking talcum powder, and they claim "But then the dust would hang in the air".

For a conspiracy theory to make sense *as* an explanation of a whole series of events, it needs to explain them ALL, not just one part of it.

Same with 9/11

Re:fake pictures? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736789)

Of course they'll say NASA forged these photos. Or that the landers were placed by robots, which is already their excuse for the langer range-finders the Apollo missions placed on the moon. There's no conceivable evidence, even in principle, which could disprove their conspiracy theory. It's a matter of faith. The interpretation of the evidence must bend to that belief, no matter how implausible the leaps involved, to vindicate it.

Re:fake pictures? (1)

j-turkey (187775) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737385)

Crazy people claim that NASA forged all those moon landing videos and photos (missing stars etc.) They have to refine their theory now it seems (maybe NASA forged these pictures as well)...

Pssh. NASA put the landers on the moon after they faked the manned landings. To further the incredibly elaborate hoax, NASA obviously developed the technology to put unmanned crafts on the moon well after the landings. The current LRO was designed to photograph these unmanned crafts to further the fraud. The footprints were made by a rover. To top it all off, Netcraft confirms all of my findings.

There are so many questions about the moon landings that the only scientific conclusion is that the manned landings starting in 1969 were an obviously elaborate hoax. The logic is so simple:

  1. Ask a couple of questions that don't have an immediately apparent answer
  2. ???
  3. Proof of a wildly elaborate hoax. To hell with Occum's razor.

Anyone who disagrees with me is either crazy, ignorant, or a NASA co-conspirator.

(Disclaimer, if you need a disclaimer to know that I'm being sarcastic, you're a putz.)

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28736529)

Wow, those are some really good pictures of the old sound stage.

Is it just me or... (0, Troll)

jernejk (984031) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736567)

did somebody draw the shadows in the wrong direction!?

Re:Is it just me or... (1)

br4nd0nh3at (1082179) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736711)

no that is just what photoshop does sometimes, oh wait I mean......

Apollo 16 (2, Interesting)

somenickname (1270442) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736603)

Looking at the Apollo 16 landing site, I bet they had a very real "Oh Shit!" moment just before landing...

Re:Apollo 16 (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737247)

Looking at the Apollo 16 landing site, I bet they had a very real "Oh Shit!" moment just before landing...

You can see the shadow of the lander inside the crater wall. Great landing site though to be so close to a crater.

Re:Apollo 16 (2, Interesting)

Attila the Bun (952109) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737503)

If you've got balls enough to be a NASA astronaut, you don't have "oh shit" moments. Armstrong famously took manual control of the Eagle and landed with just 45 seconds of fuel remaining.

Re:Apollo 16 (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737601)

I was just looking at these pictures and I suddenly got slightly dizzy and started thinking "Holy Shit! We've been to the moon!" I saw the landing when I was very young, and while it was exciting I can't even imagine what older adults were thinking at the time.

Ok, maybe I need some medicine...

Time to update Google Moon? (2, Interesting)

FeriteCore (25122) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736625)

It may be time to update Google moon [google.com] soon. It is interesting to compare the quality of the images.

Come to think of it, it would probably be harder to produce an Apollo-quality fake moon landing than do it for real given 1960 era technology.

Eerie Moon Orbits (3, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736671)

I don't know what the final orbit will be but what I find eerie about lunar orbits is that you should be able to insert something into orbit that is only say 10 miles above the highest peaks, possibly even less, and that would be amazing to watch fly over if one was in the position to be there.

Re:Eerie Moon Orbits (5, Informative)

Will_Malverson (105796) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737563)

Actually, no.

The moon is lumpy [wikipedia.org] and thus doesn't have a uniform gravity field. Objects in low orbits are slightly perturbed and don't take very long to hit the surface.

An object high enough to make the Mascons not matter is also high enough that Earth perturbs its orbit, and again, takes a short time (months, usually) to either get pulled completely out of orbit or hit the surface.

There are no stable orbits around the moon.

To update a meme... ;-) (0, Redundant)

ghostis (165022) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736683)

THOSE ARE FAKES!!111 NASA has secret contract with ILM to render hirez MOON photos! I saw it on teh Intarw3bs!

Photoshopped! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28736693)

Footpaths? _please_. And the shadow is all wrong.

NASA is the coolest... (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736743)

government agency in any civilization, ever.

Everything they do is cool.

Before you look (0)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736799)

The "Apollo 14," etc. images are not old versions of the new high-res pics, like you might think. Those are the new, "high-res" pictures of the old sites.

I feel guilty saying this, but a) high-res apparently means two different things depending on which (mars/moon) team you work for at NASA, and 2) for heaven's sakes, the actually low-resolution imagery of the landers themselves is just going to make conspiracy theorists go nuts. It looks like the result of about 5 minutes in GrafX2 and a basic knowledge of the gradient tool...

Re:Before you look (4, Informative)

Rebelgecko (893016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737075)

The conspiracy theorists won't have too much time to try and explain away the photos because of their resolution; according to the article the LRO isn't in it's final orbit yet so "Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution."

Oblig (4, Interesting)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736897)

"As I take man's last step from the surface, back home for some time to come â" but we believe not too long into the future â" I'd like to just [say] what I believe history will record â" that America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. And, as we leave the Moon at Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind. Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17."

        â" Eugene A. Cernan, Apollo 17 Commander. Last man to walk on the moon, December 14, 1972.

Couldn't they (2, Funny)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736917)

Couldn't they have faked up higher resolution images? Everyone knows that they created all the moon landings on a sound stage. I mean, rockets making it all the way to the moon? Get real! I've played with Estes rockets, and they can't can't go anywhere near that high. If my 1 foot tall rocket could go a thousand feet up, you'd need a rocket several miles high to get anywhere close to the moon. And where are you going to find a rubber band large enough to attach the parachute?

Disappointed! (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736953)

I can't see any Whalers in the pics! Maybe the Whalers live on the dark side?

Is this a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28737135)

Seriously. Is this a joke? Those pictures are blurred beyond the any recognizability. This is beyond worthless!

Big tracks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28737175)

Aren't they moon buggie tracks and not foot prints?

What, no 12?!? (2, Interesting)

redirect 'slash' nil (1078939) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737449)

I know that 12 is no stranger to coverage troubles [nasa.gov] , but this had to be one of the most exciting sites, with Pete Conrad and his team gratifying us all with the very first precision landing on the Moon, right next to the good old Surveyor III probe [wikipedia.org] . With a LEM descent stage and a probe sitting close-by on the same picture, it's bound to be a winner.

Come on NASA; we have now come to accept that the good 11 footage has been destroyed forever - don't deprive us of 12 too!

Finally, (4, Informative)

Attila the Bun (952109) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737569)

that'll shut-up the conspiracy theorists.

OK, so maybe not. One of the best, and least-quoted reasons to believe that the moon landings were genuine, is the way the dust was kicked up by the astronauts and the lunar rover. It follows a perfect parabola -- something dust in an atmosphere never does. So, NASA might have built a humongous vacuum chamber, big enough to contain a studio... But eventually it becomes simpler to go to the moon for real.

worst...evidence...ever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28737611)

This is by far the worst evidence of actual moon landings yet. If anything this will give the naysayers more reason to think the Gov is continuing to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Come on, a little dot in a grayscale image? I've done more convincing composites of GW's face on a monkey.

Re:worst...evidence...ever! (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737671)

And this post is the worst evidence that you exist.

Prove to me that you're not a perl script.

As a matter of fact, I believe I can replace all anonymous cowards in this topic with a perl script channeling art bell quotes.

Come on, people can't be this dumb.

--
BMO

Shadow Messed Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28737673)

The shadow is on the wrong side of the lunar lander.

Curse you moon crater illusion (1)

AsmordeanX (615669) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737791)

I can never seem to see lunar craters correctly. They always look like domes to me.

I hope... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28737911)

they aren't expecting to budge the conspiracy nuts. One thing people need to understand about a TRUE 24k nut - they are starting from an axiomatic position that there is a conspiracy and $EVENT never happened. Any "evidence" to the contrary - such as high resolution images of the landing sites - only serves to illustrate what lengths the conspirators are willing to go to to continue the conspiracy.

It's like people who don't buy evolution, and view fossils as being there simply "to test our faith." There is no way to convince these people. If they ever get brain scanning down I'll bet they would see that a challenge to a conspiracy nut's fixed ideas would be handled by his/her brain almost exactly the same way most people's brains handle an assertion like "black and white are the same color!"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>