The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Will Capture Images of Apollo 11 Landing Site

Those of us born in Generation X have had to endure the reality that we weren't around to feel the true sense of awe experienced in seeing the first moon landing live on TV during the summer of 1969. Sure, many of us born after it happened have seen reams of (unfortunately fuzzy) video footage that still manages to provide an inspired feeling after repeated viewings. But it's still obvious something gets lost watching the footage in continuous rerun form rather than basking in the immediate moment when we realized we had a human being from planet earth about to step foot on the moon for the first time in human history. Based on what I've written about the moon landing in 40^th anniversary-themed articles this year, each country around the world reacted differently--including the U.K. that couldn't resist putting some comedy within the coverage proceedings.

Then somewhere within all those people worldwide watching with their jaws to the floor were those scoffing at the sight of Neil Armstrong setting foot on the moon's terra firma and thinking it was being faked somewhere in the SW deserts of the U.S. I've always been curious if those people thought it a fake from the minute they saw the footage on TV or if they were in such a state of awe at what we accomplished, they couldn't get their head wrapped around it--hence initiating a sense of denial.

I'm willing to bet my history books that most of those who contended the moon landing was faked didn't latch onto the concept until days, months or even years after the fact. Certainly more joined that fray once the concept of a fake moon landing became a cottage industry through the sale of books and even a TV special. Many of you probably remember when Fox Network broadcast a highly controversial special back in 2001 called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On the Moon?" The people who produced the special seemed to make a mint based on the ratings it received at the time along with the vitriol.

Yet that was far ahead from when all the moon landing hoaxes officially started. While perhaps considered a fringe subject in 1974, a book by one of the first instigators of the hoax theory (Bill Kaysing) was somewhat ignored while being published when America was in turmoil during Watergate and a President's resignation. There's a contention that the 1978 movie "Capricorn One" about a faked mission to Mars planted the bug in the ear in the populace who seriously considered the possibility NASA pulled a fast one on the world.

After all that, we've heard everything from Stanley Kubrick directing the first moon landing on a soundstage after filming "2001" to detailed and supposed impossibilities of astronauts being able to withstand the Van Allen radiation belt in space. All those and dozens of other theories that claim to prove a hoax have been explained satisfactorily by the scientific community right on down the line. With all those explanations, you'd think the moon hoax theory would be shoved into the most obscure fringe groups. Instead, polls in recent years have too many people around the world still thinking all the NASA moon landings were a hoax.

Enter NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter that launched in June of this year. With reports now that it'll map out the entire surface of the moon and definitively get high-definition images of the original Apollo landing sites, we're looking toward a time when the moon landing hoaxes could perhaps finally be put to rest. If not, it may be enough fuel to do something greater to override moon landing hoax polls from inflating.
_____

One positive about those who adamantly believe in the moon landing hoax: Most to all are willing to admit wrongdoing if definitive evidence can finally be made available. From all appearances, many of the hoax adherents aren't the kind to live in a state of denial, even when the evidence is irrefutable. Although we'll have to take them at their word when they still disputed the explainable science behind the moon missions being real. The Van Allen radiation belt argument was logically explained via the aluminum protection on the Apollo craft that spared the astronauts from high levels of radiation. The safer radiation levels were just one major piece of evidence above many that proved we went to the moon nine times without making an astronaut deathly ill.

For those who thrive on conspiracy theories as a business, it's going to take more than just deductive scientific explanations to break up a moneymaking venture. Only in the land of America can you make a living keeping a conspiracy theory alive. That's why many of those moon landing hoax pioneers are probably secretly wishing the new Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter doesn't capture an image that proves one way or the other we went to the moon. While capturing such an image might seem impossible, consider many cameras from moon orbiters launched by us and other countries have attempted to capture the original Apollo mission landing sites with interesting if somewhat unconvincing results.

Three cases exist that are arguably the best evidence to date. The Clementine craft sent up in the early 2000's to study the moon supposedly noticed remnants on the moon's surface of Apollo 15. You also have the European Space Agency's SMART-1 moon probe that was said to capture many images of equipment left behind from the Apollo landing sites. It's always been suspicious, though, why the ESA has never released a single photo. Leave it up to Japan to come up with the best evidence to date through their SELENE moon program that was said to capture the exhaust plume halo from the module used during Apollo 15. After a satellite image last year captured what appeared to be the same lunar terrain near where the Apollo 15 landing site was, a lot of dots were connected.

Whether NASA's Reconnaissance Orbiter will be able to capture what the Hubble Telescope technically can't, the moon landing hoax is too big of a business venture now to be stripped away. No matter what's shown, moon hoax proponents will always say there isn't enough direct evidence to prove man walked on the moon's surface.

For those with more rational thought around the world, seeing hi-def images of the original Apollo 11-17 landing sites on the moon would provide the fresh new dash of awe-inspiring realism the moon landings need. Since NASA's plan to take us back to the moon by 2020 likely won't happen due to budget cuts and/or more bailouts galore in America, definitive evidence that we were there should tidy the world's populace over until we get our act together to prove we really can safely and accurately land an astronaut on the moon.

An article revealing the plans behind NASA's Reconnaissance Moon Orbiter:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10583686