|
Post by supermeerkat on Sept 18, 2011 12:44:28 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Sept 18, 2011 12:51:47 GMT -4
Any chance of a citation to go with that?
I mean, not that evidence, or lack thereof, has ever or will ever dissuade the HBs; I just want to read what the alleged paper actually says, not random out-of-context clippings with editorial fill-in.
|
|
|
Post by supermeerkat on Sept 18, 2011 14:35:00 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by james on Sept 18, 2011 23:43:28 GMT -4
Here's a link to a NASA spaceflight article: www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/09/protecting-apollo-sites-future-visiting-vehicles-nasa-evaluation/Basically Apollo 11 and 17 will have a buffer zone (75m for A11 and +200m for A17). The Apollo 12 - 16 landing sites won't have a buffer zone, but they'd like it if any future explorers would not make physical contact with the leftover hardware. As well as to keep a distance from any of the LRRR's. There have been some HB's trying to use this as evidence that the Apollo sites don't exist, but a 75m/200m buffer zone is hardly going to hide anything.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Sept 19, 2011 5:51:34 GMT -4
The principal investigator of the current laser ranging experiment at Apache Point Obseratory believes that the reflectors have been coated with a thin layer of dust that are reducing his returns 10-15 dB. If a rover could approach a panel and clean it without disturbing its postion, I'd think that would be very useful.
Apollo 17 left materials samples for the specific purpose of exposing them to long-term lunar conditions in the hope that some future mission would retrieve them and compare them with samples of the same materials kept on earth. I'd think NASA would welcome the retrieval of at least pieces of these objects for comparison, as long as it's done carefully.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Sept 19, 2011 8:57:40 GMT -4
Seems somewhat redundant to talk of exclusion zones when we can't even get there.
And we we have exclusion zones, where will we put the A303 road?
|
|
|
Post by supermeerkat on Sept 19, 2011 12:03:54 GMT -4
Didn't think of looking there! D'oh!
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Sept 20, 2011 1:11:39 GMT -4
I would have thought that there is some science t? be had in examining some of the sites or rather materials? I can understand the first and last being a heritage site of sorts.
A303 for those in the US is an ongoing issue with Stonehenge. Been trying to protect that site for years, those inconsiderate stone haulers.... of maybe the road builders...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Sept 20, 2011 13:56:49 GMT -4
I doubt they are worried about any scientific investigation of some of the sites, they just don't want the 'for all mankind' plaque turning up on e-bay...
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Sept 21, 2011 3:22:27 GMT -4
I was thinking of the state of the materials to see how they have fared. Something to learn from, also the covering of the artefacts left.
But if any of the HB's think it is in anyway a coverup and proof, how the heck do they think they were ever going to get there in the first place to confirm anything? They were never ever going to get there before this, they are not now. They have never accepted any evidence and would never accept anything from anyone who went there. They contradict themselves and no doubt there will be a video from the self proclaimed expert. The end product will be the same. The same old chasing their tails and proving nothing except ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 21, 2011 11:18:23 GMT -4
You know, I think I'd be a little less angry at them if you could learn anything from hoax belief. You can learn a lot from countering it, but hoax belief is just willful ignorance. It isn't even looking at the evidence in a new and different way. It's just ignoring it.
|
|