Post by ka9q on Feb 23, 2011 5:07:17 GMT -4
hagbardceline said:
Those artifacts could be models, balsawood frames.One simple question:
WHY?
If you're willing to accept that there are real, actual human-made artifacts on the moon, why is it so difficult to accept that they were put there by human pilots?
Don't you know that with 1960s technology it would have been much harder to place those artifacts with robots than with humans?
Start with the landing. The Surveyor landers couldn't look where they were going. Other than a radar altimeter they landed "blind". They took their chances of landing on a boulder or on the wall of a steep crater. That may be why two of the seven were lost.
The Apollo 11 site had been mapped from lunar orbit by Apollos 8 and 10 and by the robotic Lunar Orbiters, but no one really knew what the place looked like at sub-meter resolution. There was no substitute for Neil Armstrong's eyes and brain looking out the windows for a safe place to land. Even today we don't really know how to program a computer to interpret the output of a video camera in the way that the human brain can interpret what the eye sees.
And then you have all the things they did once they were there. They got out, took pictures, examined the terrain, described what they saw, collected samples, deployed instruments. Sure, some of these things could have been done robotically, but not in the way that the Apollo astronauts did.
Just look at the LRO pictures of the six Apollo landing sites. Not only is there a lander, but there are collections of scientific instruments right where they were documented as being 40 years ago. Many of the astronauts' footpaths are visible. Why is it so hard for you to accept that it happened just the way the history books said it happened when faking it all with robots would have been much more difficult??