>> Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Long long ago in an old post, Bob Johnson asked why we didn't just take pictures of the landing sites and "prove" we landed on the moon. I didn't know the answer per se but I did note that I saw little reason, even if we did have the pictures, to think anyone would be convinced.
I mean, if you don't believe the tracking by several different countries or the video or the unprecedented photographs unlike any ever taken before or the samples of soil older than anything ever found on earth or the actual people who wandered about up there, I fail to see how showing a photo of the landing site, no matter how convincing, would convince someone who was willing to ignore all the available proof.
But, in case I'm wrong:
This is good stuff. There's the LEM, the scientific hardware left behind and a neat little trail of footy prints. The truth is, it IS cool to be able to see the site of where we've been before. So, I'm glad they took it whether it convinces anyone or not.
And, if someone who felt there wasn't sufficient proof before was convinced by this, let me know. I'd like to understand the reasoning.